Has The Price/performance Curve Changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jack Hammer
  • Start date Start date
Harvey Gerst said:
I'm not gonna refute any of your statements, but I do want to point out that Stephen Paul's name is VERY well known in the professional studio circles. It's just not very well known in home studios until recently.

That's why I said that the comment wasn't a slam at Stephen or his mic. I know that his mods are famous, and I'm sure the people that do _________ (insert famous talent name here) recordings are very familiar with Stephen's work-but are the artists themselves familiar with Stephen's work? Not really a rhetorical question-does the talent know much about the process of making them sound good, and do they come into the studio with preconceived notions about what equipment they want to hear/see/use, or do they walk in and say "Make us sound good, however you want." Put another way...Does the talent really care what you put in front of their faces, or do they come in the studio looking for specific brands and types of mics with which they are familiar? In other words, are they looking at the process, or do they just want to hear the results?
 
Most pro actors do care and have a lot of exeperince. A session, especially recording vocal tracks, is a very mental thing between srtist, producer and engineer... so a good practice would be to start with "well recogniced equipoment"... if the artist doesn't perform well this session, most likley they will start blaming the monitor mix and equipment....
If the session develop well and the track fits into the mix... then you can start try out new eqipment... if the atmosphere is good you will preobably end up with some tracks that will outperfform your basic set up...
If you start by intrducing new stuff you might get the blame if the artist doesn't perform to expectations....

rgds
 
Those who are saying that a home studio recording will never break the charts look at last months Home Recording Magazine, and re-state your thoughts.
 
Harvey Gerst said:
I'm not gonna refute any of your statements, but I do want to point out that Stephen Paul's name is VERY well known in the professional studio circles. It's just not very well known in home studios until recently.

I knew as soon as I submitted that post that I worded that thing about Stephen's mics wrong.....

Just to set the record straight.....
 
musikman316 said:
Those who are saying that a home studio recording will never break the charts look at last months Home Recording Magazine, and re-state your thoughts.
Sorry.. I don't get that magazine.. why don't you post the article you are speaking of. Thanks.

WATYF
 
rambo said:
Most pro actors do care and have a lot of exeperince. A session, especially recording vocal tracks, is a very mental thing between artist, producer and engineer... so a good practice would be to start with "well recogniced equipoment"... if the artist doesn't perform well this session, most likley they will start blaming the monitor mix and equipment....
If the session develop well and the track fits into the mix... then you can start try out new eqipment... if the atmosphere is good you will preobably end up with some tracks that will outperfform your basic set up...
If you start by intrducing new stuff you might get the blame if the artist doesn't perform to expectations....

rgds

You must have a whole different brand of clientele than i have, rambo. My clients love it when i get excited about an "unknown" product, and then they can't wait to try it. If I tell a client: "I recently picked up this Excalibur DeComposer for EXACTLY this kind of situation - you won't believe what it wil do to your ocarina sound!"... they'll be begging me to hook it up!

It's pretty rare I run into someone who says: "the only way I'll record is with an SP modded U47 into a Helios pre into an LA2A into a Pultec into a Fairchild going to 2" with all mogami cables. And by the way, I'll need at least a 15' ceiling in the vocal booth..."

I'm not saying there aren't a few of those folks out there, but let's face it, they wouldn't be booking my studio anyway. I don't have a personal chef, a sauna, or a masseuse on staff either.

Fortunately I'm able to tap into the rest of the great unwashed out there. But if I get a call from any of those types, I'll send them over to you Rambo! :D
 
musikman316 said:
Those who are saying that a home studio recording will never break the charts look at last months Home Recording Magazine, and re-state your thoughts.

I didn't know anybody was saying that. Seems like every time i pick up any magazine, there's at least one article about how everyone from Aerosmith to Medeski, Martin, and Wood are recording out of their houses these days.

If there is a repeating mantra on these bulletin boards, it's usually more along the lines of: "the skill of the artists and engineers is a bigger factor in making a great record than the gear."

Look no farther than all the cheap stuff Harvey uses (although he has some pricey stuff too...).
 
What a gentlemanly and thoughtful thread. It is refreshing to read all of your good comments and support for one another's ideas.

As a consumer, I tend to bridge the two worlds of pro audio and hi-fi. I'm barely a beginning recordist with little experience, but I've listened a great deal over the decades, and I'm excited by the improvements in recording quality that are now available to "mere" amateurs. Don't we all have favorite albums and/or CDs that were horribly recorded? My collection is plagued with early-1980s CDs of wonderful performances that have sound qualities about as pleasing as nails on a blackboard. I've spent a small fortune this year making our stereo playback system *less* articulate and revealing in order to make those performances more enjoyable to listen to.

At this exciting time, relatively affordable pro audio has overtaken and surpassed many professional productions of just a decade ago. The Alesis MasterLink 9600 (discussed on the Alesis forum this evening) not only captures but archives onto CD and plays back 24-bit, 96khz oversampled recordings for the amazing price of $899 delivered (from 8th Street Music on-line). In the world of hi-fi, even used hi-fi, $900 for a piece of equipment that does so much is NOTHING! (It's still a lot of money to me, but within the range of saving up for without having to take out a second mortgage.)

Your audiences and potential customers in the world of hi-fi are eager to buy better recordings. There definitely ARE artists and labels that care more about recording quality than others, and at least some of their success is based on the differences you speak of. As an example, I buy mainly classical music, but when I hear a particularly well recorded piece, regardless of genre, I tend to run out and buy it.

I would guess that hundreds of thousands of music consumers are waiting for the SACD / DVD-A wars to end and for music-rights holders to get off their greedy butts and start releasing new and re-releasing cherished older performances in a consumer-accessible 24/96 format. I think such a format will reinvigorate and revolutionize the music industry once again, just as CD did in the early 1980s. Without the CD -- regardless of its inherent limitations -- new classical music recordings would have almost disappeared.

I too have used the argument that most people are listening to recorded music on boom boxes and car stereos, so quality doesn't make much difference, but you know what? If you offer something better, people will buy it. The high end of the audio market has shifted for now to home theater, but that money -- those same people who have $5K to $30K or more to spend on their HT systems -- would gladly buy better two-channel equipment if the recordings were readily available to purchase at a competitive price.

Not that long ago, "pro audio" was synonymous with "crappy sound quality." No more. I now agree that some of the truly great albums of the next decade will likely come out of relatively modest "home" studios. Let the revolution begin!

With kind regards,

Mark H.
 
Contemporary Christian artist / ICON... Stephen Curtis Chapman recorded his most recent album at home on a Yamaha AW4416.
 
Boy, this is some of the best stuff I've seen yet @ HR.

Here's a little timeline from my experience on cost vs performance.

In '79 I started recording in an 8-track studio. The guy probably had $10K in the place. It wasn't very good.

In '82 I started working and recording in good 16-track 2" studio. They had over $200K in the basic gear. Nice studio. I'd book 30-hour blocks w/ the engineer for $1500. I probably spent $20K there and came out w/ a couple 45 records and a bunch of demo tapes.

In '87, I designed a MIDI suite for Evergreen Recording in NYC. It cost over $20K. Bunch of racked modules all over the wall running through a Soudcraft board for monitoring. It was cool, but we could only dick around w/ MIDI in there. And when we were through with the MIDI production, it all got piped in through tie-lines to Studio A's Harrison console a Studer deck. Studio A had a good $200K in it.

Until the mid '90's, there really wasn't a choice if you wanted good sound from a mic. I used nothing but Neumann, AKG, EV, Shure, Crown. Then a company called Audio Technica came out with the AT4033. I designed a project studio for a production company that was signed to Maverick Records. The heart of the system was a Mackie 32 8bus, Akai DR-16, TL Audio C1 comp w/ pre, Ensoniq DP4+, Alesis Quadraverb 2, Tannoy PBM 6.5II monitors powered by a Hafler amp and an AT4033. This was in '96 and it was a beautiful system. The whole thing cost less than $20K – which was absurdly inexpensive at the time.

While I was on that project in '97, I'd regularly work in two other studios. One had an Amek Mozart w/ 3 Akai 12-track digital decks, Tube Tech, Urei, Lexicon. The other had a Langley Big w/ a Studer deck and nice outboard. Both of those studios were still considered "project studios". They were all excellent and there was not one that of the three that was sonically superior to the other. Very successful major-label records were recorded in all of them.

The $20K '97 Mackie/ DR-16 studio was sonically superior to a 24-track studio I'd worked in in NYC in the late '80's called Databank. It was known as a good quality low-priced studio that booked @ $45/hr. Labels would send their artists there to track and then mixdown somewhere like Quad. The main system at Databank was a D&R 40-input console, MCI 2" analog multi-track deck, NS10's, Urei monitors, and it was nicely stocked w/ AMS, Publison, Lexicon, Neumann, AKG... That studio was modest by late-'80's standards and the main bulk of the gear cost over $100K.

I worked on sessions in '98 in Denise Rich's "home studio" in her upper Eastside penthouse overlooking Central Park. 2 O2R's, ADAT. Price of the gear was about $20K. Damn good studio.

In 2002, I'm in the middle of a studio/system design project for a client that's based around a Roland 2480, Michael Green monitors, Vintech 1272 pre, Grace 101, VTB-1, Crane Song Trakker, RNC, Masterlink, Pods, C1, 414, U195, MC012. The main part of the system cost less than $15K and it's an amazing room. What could an experienced engineer not do with a system like that!? We've checked mixes on a boom box, car stereos and $25K audiophile room in the same house with Conrad Johnson tube amps and MartinLogan speakers. What we're getting back, even in the early stages, is blowing me away.

Major label records have been tracked at home by artists Remy Shand (Motown) - he recored his record in his basement on Roland 880's, Aerosmith, Ace of Base – recorded first record in an apartment in Stockholm on a Soundcraft and ADAT's, The Sundays - recorded at home, mixed at Abbey Road. Every year gear is getting more amazing and more inexpensive.

The best and lowest-cost studio system I can think of now that would still achieve professional fidelity would be a used loaded Roland 1680 w/ 2 EFX cards and CD-R ($1000 on Ebay), VTB-1 pre ($179), RNC comp ($179), C1 mic ($199), MCO12 pair w/ multi caps ($200), SM57 ($79), Tannoy 6.5II monitors ($225 used), Crown D-75 amp ($150 used )That is $2211!! For the whole system. Heck, you could even throw in a new Masterlink and still get out for under three grand! A great record could easily be made with that gear. You could throw that whole system in the backseat of your car and take off and record anywhere.

The gear is here and available to just about anyone. Every year I get less and less impressed with "the gear list" and more impressed with how rooms and spaces are designed and used.
 
Last edited:
Dot said:
I worked on sessions in '98 in Denise Rich's "home studio" in her upper Eastside penthouse overlooking Central Park. 2 O2R's, ADAT.

You should be pardoned for that Dot. :)
 
I didn't know anybody was saying that. Seems like every time i pick up any magazine, there's at least one article about how everyone from Aerosmith to Medeski, Martin, and Wood are recording out of their houses these days.

That was pretty much the theme of the article on the cover of last month's Keyboard magazine: Moby records his albums in a constructed "room" in the middle of his New York apartment.

---
DAVID VESEL -- synthpop recording artist
The new single, "The Caves"
The new album, Calliope
Now available on Situation Records
http://www.ampcast.com/davidvesel
davidvesel@pobox.com
 
Kjam,

Interesting point about Steven Curtis Chapman. What I've heard from the most recent album is his best sounding music ever!

Fab
 
Littledog...

..."If there is a repeating mantra on these bulletin boards, it's usually more along the lines of: "the skill of the artists and engineers is a bigger factor in making a great record than the gear."...

I couldn't agree more!!!
 
kjam22 said:
Contemporary Christian artist / ICON... Stephen Curtis Chapman recorded his most recent album at home on a Yamaha AW4416.

You got a link that proves that?
 
Ha! Oh, well. I typed in "chapman 4416" into Google and pulled that up.
 
Just a quick piggy back on Chessrocks comment on a $400 mic not being worth $200 more in sound quality than a $200 mic.

Another thing to emphasis this point...
Human ears need 10 times the amount of volume to hear "twice" as loud.
This same principal could be applied to microphone quality. twice as loud being considered in twice the quality. And the 10 times being the price.
Not saying that this is exact, just an example (.02).
-DAN
 
Back
Top