I see where you are going S8-N. When me and Producer Chris Stevens mixed the Heavy Brothers CD, we did it in a studio that went for about 45-50 an hour (with engineer. we of course choose the cheaper route of renting it without). So, I don't think that you neccesarilly need a high dollar studio to get really good results. Having a lot of TIME, and PATIENCE, and KNOWLEDGE, and VISION will get you what you need in a recording/mix.
We are still looking at a budget on that Korn album of probably at least 50-60K for recording/mix. That is a lot of dough!!! The biggest budget I ever worked with was the Heavy Brothers CD, and if the exec.producer had paid full price for recording/mix, it would have been about 25-30K. So, half the budget. I thought that the outcome was pretty damn good. Stacks up well against other like products. Hurray!
There is a point of diminishing returns with anything. Certainly the difference between a 50 an hour studio and a 150 is usually not going to be in things that are evident at a casual look or listen. Often, studios start out charging a whole lot less than what they are worth just to get the business. I have to do that still here and there. But at some point, you are busy, and you are going to stay busy, so you are going to charge more. That is supply and demand. I am sure that that studio that Korn did there 1st CD in is probably going for a bit more than 50 an hour now. But, I think we are dealing with the exception here, rather than what is common. There are studios in the Portland Oregon area that many big name people have recorded at that go for a whole lot less than the big boy studios. Why these studios are not around anymore is probably because they could never charge enough to get ahead of the technology game, and ever important thing for high end studios. They also lacked that personel to make it fly at the big time level. So, too expensive for the local market, and to low tech for the money for the big time market. That is the way it goes.
Anyway, my point is that "GENERALLY" you are going to need to go to studios that go for a lot more money than most of us can afford to get the kind of results that compares to the big boy sound. For every example you can give me of a low tech recording becoming a hit, or sounding great, I can play you 10 high budget recordings that sounds like crap. These are the exceptions, not the common recordings.
I still will make the point that more bucks will almost always rent you a better studio, with a better engineer. You can almost always count on the results from a high dollar studio being superior to the best a low tech facility can produce. The experience of the engineer, and the superior equipment list make this almost a certainty.
And I still must emphasis the quality of the wiring throughout your audio chain!!! Good wire, good sound. My $250 Behringer dynamic processors is every bit as good as most Drawmer, dbx, Aphex etc...processing that goes for more than twice the price. But if I have junk wire connecting it, it will never live up to its promise. Neither will the more expensive equipment. Any "Regional" sized studio will have at least Magami or Canare cable in it. Those brands of cable are far superior to what you can get from the average music store. I don't care what the packaging says on the Horizon "regular guy" mic cable, it will not pass as good of an audio signal as the good wire will. Times this by every connection from deck to patch bay, patch bay to console, patch bay to in on processor, out of processor to patch bay, patch bay jumper cables, etc........you have a significantly degraded audio path from the wire alone!!! That is just one of the advantages of high dollar studios, better wire.
Also, have you ever seen a Telefunken mic pre-amp before? Holy cow!!! They look like something you would find at an old mans garage sale sitting behind a stack of books with a $1 price tag on it. Old, clumsy looking, heavy, ugly. But, this is a killer sounding mic pre! So don't let the appearance of a studio from a picture fool you. Often, the Class A mic pre's are sitting somewhere where you can't see them in the recording room off to the side. Often, the mic cable is running right to them, then the output running through the house snake to the control room. Ever seen
a Lexicon 480 L? A black box with nothing on the front sitting in the rack. Look on the console for the very 60's looking control box for this unit. The control unit is quite small and could easily be missed in a photo. It might have been sitting off to the side somewhere. Old LA/2A's look like something out of a 50's sci-fi movie, yet, they are some of the most sought after leveling amplifiers around. Manley's stuff generally look very unimpressive also. So, don't let the "look" of a studio fool you. There was probably some very impressive boxes in that studio Korn did there first CD at.
I will address an issue here also that in my opinionated opinion makes probably the biggest difference in how a recording is going to turn out. I often don't address this issue with musicians and post's on this forum because it is a very delicate issue. By saying this, I could very well offend a lot of people. But, here it goes.
MOST MUSICIANS WILL NEVER, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY SPEND TO RECORD, WHAT EQUIPMENT THEY USE ETC.....GET A GREAT SOUNDING RECORDING BECAUSE THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE THE TALENT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There, I have said it. Whew, I feel so much better by coming out of the closet on this issue on here with all of you. And since I know what a nurturing environment this is, I know that every reading this will TRY TO RIP THIS TO SHRED AND CALL ME ALL SORTS OF NASTY NAMES.......
But, I will hold to that comment. I sit for hours listening to somewhat good talent try to record so-so songs all the time. When I am having a good day, I am working with someone that has a decent song with close to big time talent. And on the rarest of days, I will get somebody that will come in and blow my mind! I hear it all the time, the ugly, the bad, the good, and the great. (well, less of the great than I would like). Let me tell you this. When someone who comes in and really has what I feel it would take to be big time and lays a track, it goes quick. The sound comes together fast. The track was recorded within usually 3 takes. Whether the fedelity was perfect or not, at mix, that track shines right through and sounds like it was done by the big time boys. It was a great performance. The artist didn't make any excuses, he/she adapted to the environment and laid down a one of a kind take! It would sound killer listening to it with a coffee can with a string attached to it!
Getting a whole band of people like that is a rareity. That is why for every band that makes it, there are 10,000 bands that flonder in mediocrity. The bands that make it are good, thus, they sound great on tape. The others, well, they talk about the lame engineer at the studio, or how they need the newest box to "make" their sound. Blah blah blah.......They just don't have it, thus, anyone working with them can only rise it up to the next level, if even that.
So lets not forget that getting the right mix, or sound has just as much to do with the quality of the performance and the quality of the song as it does any techinques that were used in the recording or mix, or with the kind of equipment used for the same. If the song and/or performance is so-so, the recording can only be so-so. Recording is totally interactive with the performer. If the performer can't adapt to the environment, AND, do a killer take, there is not much that can be done later to make it sound like a recording that contains killer talent.
So, what am I trying to say here? Let me tell you what I am not saying. I am not saying that everyo
