Home Recording vs. Pro Studio Recording

  • Thread starter Thread starter chessparov
  • Start date Start date
OK.......................

HERE WE GO....................

Let me get all of this straight.

IF I have the greatest engineer in my home with my Cassette recorder,
I really do not need any of that oh ..... 10 million dollar equipment at Abby Road?

My songs will sound just as good if not better?

Now how silly.
 
wow

Greetings,

I'm an amature who records on minidisk (why does everyone look down on that?) and PC but I gotta say I think pro studios and amature stuidios have 99.9% the same musical potential.

Basic biology tells you the human ear wasn't designed to distinguish the same sound played in 24 and 32 bit. Just don't happen. (everything you listen to is converted to electrochemical gradients and "interpreted" by your brain...ponder that for a while)

The only thing my band can't replice with the Pro studios is experience. Thats it.
If I won the lottery I would have studio that looked like a space station. But I am not an expert at making that "glossy" mainstream music. Sometime we compress too much, sometimes the bass is too low, sometimes the reverb is wrong.

But I seriously think, given talent, equiment, and effects, the only inequality left is experience. But in truth I don't want to spend my time trying to sound exactly like the timetested perfectly polished music that I have grown up on. I just want to do my stuff well.

Invigorating,
SirRiff
 
Hey SirRiff!
The whole idea of homerecording is to have fun with what you're doing, learning to work with what you've got, and make intelligent purchases if and when you want to expand.

Nobody listens to 32 bit, that's normally reserved for internal processing. But you can damn sure hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit, and you can damn sure hear the difference between 44.1, 48, 96 and 196 Hz!

Minidisk use a heavily compressed format, which degrades audio quality. There is a considerable difference in quality between Minidik and CD. And you'll have to consider that CD quality sucks on a grand scale, and the whole industry is moving towards 24 bit........
 
Re: wow

SirRiff said:
But I seriously think, given talent, equiment, and effects, the only inequality left is experience.
Click to expand...

don't forget acoustics. The home recordist is hard pressed to find and environment that is as quiet or as ambient as a great room. I'm not saying it's not doable, just not practical for the hobbiest, unless he's packing a very fat wallet.

Taylor
 
I disagree about the difference between 44.1 - 48.1 and even between 44.1 to 96. On several blind tests people have not been able to tell the difference. If you have to resample then the difference is useless or worse.

To get back to the topic on hand home versus pro.
I'm not trying to bang home users but just to bring up some points of thought.

* Mixing in a computer hasnt yet reaches the sonic quality of a good analog consule.

* Pro studios invest mega bucks in room acoustics

* A typical acoustic recording in a pro studio of a full cd uses at least 8-10 different mic's, 4 different pre's, 4-5 different compressors.
Lets take a imaginery session - recording drums only....
I would use at least 3 different pre's. The reason being
1. Wanting to acheive already at the recording stage different depths and color and seperation (to a degree)
2. Wanting to fit the specific part of the kit to the right pre.

I wont even get into mic-compressor-pre quality but most pro studios hold a single chain's worth of $4000-$5000.
Imagine now that you are using your Mackie pre's to record not only your whole drum kit but every single instrument you own plus vocals is going through the same pre's over and over again.
The result will be of one dimension, no seperation no depth.

You could say I'll be using a good pre and no Joe shmoe call tell the difference when you A/B a single track of bass for him but it WILL make a difference even to Joe if you play all the tracks together compared to the single use of a single pre.

Some compressors do geat for some tracks while at the same time dont do that great at at others. So you went out and bought 3 RNC's....They are realy nice but cant handle every track prefectly as well as they hae the same color again.
Using a Focusrite and Drawmer daily, I find that sometimes they cant do what a DBX can sometimes do better. Like taking control over a solo guitar and making it realy punchy !.

I always hear about "but what about that band -The Computer Boys...they did it all at home.
I can almost %100 gaurentee thatif you checked out the full path of the signal you will find pro gear be it the pre or the mic and the engineer was not the lead guitarist...........

The engineer - not every human can can be a engineer. Not every engineer can be a good one. Not every good engineer can be a creative talented one. (Not every engineer that plays drums can play on your next CD......)
Engineering is as much an ART as playing guitar...

Last point - A good production is team work and not a one man band.
If you get into the studio and it has great gear with a great enginner behind the gear with a helpfull assitant and a good producer with great musicians playing great material, you stand
the chance of making a great album. TEAM WORK is the key.

So if you think that you are going to make a pro album with you (the keyboard player) engineering and you producing and you singing and mixing and mastering and songwriting and using your
computer - Mackie mixer or computer in your untreated bedroom....... and can't see the difference between the pro versus home, then I wish you the best of luck as your going to need it.

If your doing this for fun and fun only then go about it !.
 
LOL As I never disagree with you Shailat, this is a first, and only on a couple of small points in your post. However, it includes everything I have been working on over the last couple of years.

Quote;
"Mixing in a computer hasnt yet reaches the sonic quality of a good analog consule".

That is absolutely no longer the case. As far as pure audio is concerned, it is now able to surpass anything previously possible in analogue only, including extended frequency range and dynamics.
Obviously it depends on the limitations of the equipment used, but it is clearly possible to produce top quality audio even at 24/48, providing great case is taken with the conversions, and keeping the system jitter free.
You are not going to get that quality with using a soundcard, you need dedicated specialist equipment, but all-in-all it is realistic and relatively cheap.
Logistically an analogue console always had limitations, as has recording on magnetic media. Digital technology has now surpassed these limitations.

Quote:
"I disagree about the difference between 44.1 - 48.1 and even between 44.1 to 96. On several blind tests people have not been able to tell the difference. If you have to resample then the difference is useless or worse".
(note - I don't understand the last line)

I have seen the result of a number of these tests. Very strange, until you ascertain what equipment and configuration they used to "test". For a start playing a compressed medium mastered to 44.1 / 16 will very obviously not demonstrate the advantages of a 24 / 48 or higher quality recording (!?)
I can assure you one thing, the difference between 44.1 and 48 is destinct and very audible. The difference between 48 and 96 is also very clear, the difference between 96 and 192 is more difficult to hear, but it is there without any question and becomes more and more apparent when you start building tracks. Needless to say the difference between 44.1 and 96 or 192 is huge.
I have yet to encounter one single person, trained ears or not, whom I have played things to at different rates who have not heard an immediate difference.

Until a couple of years ago the comments "digital isn't as good" were valid. Today, they are obsolete. Very often these comments are made by people accustomed to working in the analogue domain, in which case they should re-phrase their comments to "my ears are accustomed to pleasant harmonic distortion";)
 
Maybe (for laughs?) you guys may want to check out www.minidisc.org
sometime. I recall that at least once on their website they claim that
in blind testing people have not reliably been able to tell the difference
between a cd and minidisc, from version ATRAC 3.5 up.
They also claim that from ATRAC 2 to before 3.5, that it's almost "DAT"
level. I have a Sony 2 track minidisk with the latest ATRAC for live
recordings, and a Tascam 564 4 track (ATRAC 2) for demos.
Even though there is a slight difference in audio quality between them,
they are both seem adequate for professional level demo recordings,
especially if you add effects like reverb "post minidisk" if you burn down
to a cd when mixing (minidisc cuts off reverb tails).
Sometimes my problem in recording has been being too fussy, partly
because my hearing still probably extends over 20khz! (tested 22khz+
as a kid) I think there's a certain placebo effect, if you gave someone
a cd that came from a minidisc recorder-if you didn't tell them they
probably wouldn't notice a difference!

P.S. If you get a Studio Projects C1 microphone, I think you cut the signal
chain budget by about $2000 over a Neumann 87!
 
Lovely claims - just apply some Logic
As you stated correctly, a minidisk cuts a reverb chain short (and if it does that, it does other things as well), which is due to the compression the format applies.
So therefore - with very little logic applied - it cannot sound like a CD (and even CD's sound like shit).
Now you do a test, and let people listen to both media. What would you do? Many possibilities. First thing you can do is choose your speakers, and pick a small monitor, with a small or no port, which causes 'natural' compression. Now, unless you have trained ears, you will not hear the difference if you play a CD or minidisk.

I had a row with a manufacturers rep at a show a couple of years ago who was doing a mini vs CD demo. I listened to both and became suspicious, because I can pretty much identify the characteristics of different media. I asked him to show me the minidisk. He thought I just wanted to see what a minidisk looked like, so he obliged. Next I asked him to show me the CD, which he did a bit more reluctandly. It was a CD-R of cause, recorded from the minidisk................. con job!

If you'd do a real a/b in a proper studio environment, using a broad frequency range accurate monitoring system, the difference between the 2 would jump straight in your face. But most people don't listen like that - which again goes to show that everything is relative:rolleyes:
 
LOL I missed the microphone remark

You would save yourself some money. Pitty they don't sound nearly the same :(
 
Sjoko,

Perhaps you can put together a chain that would convince me otherwise but I have heard many different ones including Apogee
converters and PT, and I havn't yet heard one that can come up better, then the summing in a good analog desk.
However your statement of "my ears are accustomed to pleasant harmonic distortion"..... I find that amusing :). You might be right
(or wrong):).

With the resampling I meant that since the CD format is of 16 bit and 44.1 you would have to resample no matter how you record your tracks.

About half a year ago I spoke to Bob Katz who told me that the use of 48 and resampeling to 44.1 is in most DAWs today is most probably harmfull. And the differences working in 48 canot be heard if you resample it to 44.1.

Other then R. Nichols who claimed that the whole crew on SD's
last album did a A/B test to hear the same material in 44.1 to 96 and could not hear a difference (and so he choose to work in 44.1), I also read two lab tests of people who have done such A/B tests and came up with the same results as well as my humble self (although my test was far from being sterile and didnt cover many different types of gear.
I'm not talking about 16bit to 24. On that you will find everybody
agree's to the improvment !.

perhaps today there is gear I havn't heard as I dont use digital on a daily basis that can show such an improvment. I'm sure that
if there isnt, then there will be in the future.
I know apogee just came out with to new converters that I hear are excellent.... time will tell.

Sigh...I know that analog will at some time be dead and studio with out a good digital set up, will die away or become a museum.
Today we use in the studio a full blown PT system and a Tripledat. We are now on the look for new converters as if PT has one serious downfall, it's that.
 
Hey

If you prick a minidisk user, do we not bleed?
If you crash a minidisk system, do we not loose our drum tracks??

Why hath you forsaken us?


I still say the low end of digital home recording can potentially produce music that is 90-95% representative of the billion dollar N'synch (ewww) studios.

SirRiff
 
Yup, in the case of Digidesign (or things with the digi name on it), converter means "turns sound into crap".

I think Bob's reason for saying that has to be taken into context. One of his main irritations is that people record at one rate, then don't pay sufficient attention to dithering down, thereby incurring a lot of jitter, which is, of cause, a major bummer for any mastering engineer. I know he feels that, if people cannot do it properly, they shouldn't attempt to do it at all, and they are therefore better off recording at 44.1, especially as the majority of DAW's do not have a good dithering program.

The "cannot hear the difference" thing is real funny. Inevitably, when you look at what they were listening to, it becomes obvious. There can be so many reasons why you couldn't hear a difference, and they are all logical and obvious, IF you know where to look. Reasons differ per system and system configuration, but lets take Pro Tools, with an 888/24 I/O as an example.
* Lousy A/D conversion. So whatever you put in there is low quality.
* Lousy D/A conversion. What you hear is actually worse than what's on the disks.
* A hopelessly inaccurate system clock.
Now lets test the thing. What we are looking for is an improvement in the quality of sound, which in human hearing terms is expressed as hearing an extended low end, an equally extended high end, and a smoother sound throughout.
We put a signal in, starting at 44.1. Now we swith up to 48. We hear hardly any difference. Why?
Because the signal going in is mediocre to start off with, jitter gets worse when the clock switches from 44.1 to 48, and the D/A is the same crap as it was before.

Alternative - replace the faulty elements and everything becomes clear and audible immediately. I have done a load of demo's like that always with the same results.

Shai - send me an email with you PT set-up spec and I might be able to point you in the right direction
;)
 
Re: Hey

SirRiff said:
If you prick a minidisk user, do we not bleed?
If you crash a minidisk system, do we not loose our drum tracks??

Why hath you forsaken us?


I still say the low end of digital home recording can potentially produce music that is 90-95% representative of the billion dollar N'synch (ewww) studios.

SirRiff
Click to expand...

LOL Sorry SirRiff - I didn't mean to prick you!
As far as the second bit - you are totally 100% correct! If only 'coz In-Sync has no low end! :D
 
sjoko, as you may have detected, I enjoy making "provocative" statements
(like about the C1) on this bbs partly to keep things fun and also to elicit
useful info from my recording "superiors"! Out of curiousity though....
have you ever A/B'd the C1 with another mike yet, or are you tempted to?
With good monitor or audiophile speakers I bet you're right about telling
the difference between cd and minidisc, however, as you stated- how many
people listen to music that way?

In the spirit of SirRiff, to paraphrase Hamlet, "Alas poor analogue, I knew
him well".
 
sjoko2 said:
LOL I missed the microphone remark

You would save yourself some money. Pitty they don't sound nearly the same :(
Click to expand...

sjoko,

Have you given the C1 a listen?
 
Yup I have. Extremely good value for money. I've got absolutely no idea whatever where the comparison between a C1 and a U87 comes from. One thing is for sure, it cannot have been from people who have had them side-by-side.
But, like I said, VERY good value for money (like, for instance, the Marshall condenser)

It does not sound like, or nearly as good as, an 87 or 89, and then again, the 87's and 9's I have got have been modified, fitted with tubes, and changed to the way they should have been made in the first place, because I didn't think they were very good to start. Would have been difficult for Neumann to do themselves, as they have to sell microphones, and my tubed 87 blows a modern Neumann tube, and even a vintage U47 or Telefunken, clearly out of the water.

Go on.... tell me I'm a spoiled brat :cool:
 
Last edited:
You're a spoiled brat. :D

How much does a mod like that cost? Since these mods practically rebuild the whole capsule, do they do mods on the Chinese mics? If I remember right on Harvey's mic list there was a Chinese mic that had been modified. I think it was a Steven Paul mod, but I may be wrong on that.

Taylor

p.s. thanks for your thoughts on the C1
 
Re: C1 vs. U87

sjoko, one place where the "C1 vs. U87" comparison came in is
in Rip Rowan's article on the C1 at www.prorec.com.
It talked about a NAMM convention where a C1 and U87 were
tested side by side by a very strong (vocally) female singer and she sounded great on both of them-in fact the "witnesses" couldn't tell the difference! (Is it real or Memorex?)
Lest we digress... do you guys want to add any thoughts to the
"C1" threads in the microphone forum?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top