Home Recording vs. Pro Studio Recording

  • Thread starter Thread starter chessparov
  • Start date Start date
C

chessparov

New member
There's an interesting book called "Studio Basics What You Should Know
Before Entering The Recording Studio" by Richard Mansfield.
The very first chapter is about this very topic. In a nutshell it states that
the primary purpose of a home studio is to prepare for the (pro) recording
studio largely because of the greater expertise there and better
equipment. To use myself as an example, my goal is simply to lay down
tracks and bring them to a local studio for mixing and mastering to
create "demo" level (not "release" level!) recordings.

I'm very curious about feedback on this hot topic so fire away!
 
I like your idea for the most part.
But..
If they are demos, why not mix at home? And why bother to master them?
Just playing Devils Advocate.

What are you recording on at home?
What will you be mixing on at the studio?
What is the benefit of this setup?

Recording at home gives you the luxory of spending time writing parts to your song, and not wasting money on studio time for song development. The downside is that your equipment probably isn't as good as a pro studio, and your room probably doesn't sound as good.

Mixing in a pro studio might allow you to send your mix through a nice console in a nice room on nice monitors instead of using the crappy summing bus found in most software. You could use the studio's nice outboard FX and compression, and probably get a better mix than at home.
But it's going to cost you, and it is only a demo.

I think the home tracking, studio mixing is a good compromise.

Have a 3rd party master the material.
 
Thanks for your response E-money, you brought up good points.
The primary thrust of my question, however, was to encourage
discussion of what level of expectations are reasonable for
home recordists with a decent idea (or better) how to self record
themselves. The sound quality of digital (stand-alones & PC's)
used by home recorders is so high that I assume that the main
advantage of a pro studio is the greater expertise of the engineer, better monitors, better room, etc. The issue to me seems either we can "cheap out" on one extreme, or overspend
on the other, so guidance from experienced recordists on this bbs
should certainly be appreciated.

Personally, I just use pre-mixed backing tracks and put my vocal
(or some friends) on top of it. If it was to send to a songwriter I
didn't know, maybe the demo would be both mixed and mastered at a local studio so it sounds "good". If it was being sent to a
record company or producer it would go to a 3rd party for proper mastering. Also there's the advantage of me not having to spend more $ on good monitors! My Tascam 564 portastudio has "direct
outs", so the tracks can be transferred direct to a pro studio's
mixer. You certainly had a great point about "the room".
To improve my sound and keep things convenient, all my (studio
level) microphones are the close miking type-I got tired of recording in a walk-in closet!
 
I'd save my money and do your entire "demo" project at home. Don't waste your money taking your porta studio to a pro studio.....with the Tascam being the weak link, a pro mixer aint gonna clean things up. Don't waste your money with mastering either, unless you plan to do a final "release quality" project....or master at home with the available tools to the home recordist. The quality one can achieve at home now a days can be quite excellent...especially for demo purposes. Remember however, even demos *might* need to sound *finished*, so you might just save your bucks and do the entire project at a pro place, if you feel you don't have the chops to do it at home.
 
I think richard mansfield is on the defensive bec the "pro" studio is on the decline, notwithstanding reports of an increase in bookings in the beg of 2001. Hes making a huge generalization by saying the that the home studio is to prepare for the pro studio. I would say just the opposite. Some of the biggest problems in home recordings have to with bad tracking. Bad mic placement, bad choice of mic, cheap pre, bad room, wrong compression, etc. These are things pro studios do well. As far as mixing though, theres alot of subjective territory and in general I would go heavily with the artist/producer to mix or oversee the mix in a very hands on way especially if its an involved mixing job that requires creativity/trend awareness/and an atypical sound which 9 out of 10 studios will not give you bec that involves time, experimentation and work.
 
Warning: I'm fixing to rant..

First of all, let me say that I must be in the minority: I do this completely for fun.. (uh.. expensive fun).. I don't have any plans to really market my stuff.. I may eventually throw it out on an mp3 someday, but I don't expect to make a living off my finished product, and my ears are easy to please: they aren't golden, and I hope they only reach a general level of clarity that allows me to enjoy my own cd's along with those of my favorite bands.. ignorance is truly bliss...

Second, I agree that recording a demo at home is a decent option, provided that you realize that a demo isn't really considered a professional recording.. It's designed to be a sample of tracks that shows your band at it's best.. It's a resume on tape-no more, no less.. If this wasn't the case, then the songs on the first albums of all your favorite bands would not have been re-recorded, mixed, and mastered professionally.. This definition removes the pressure from trying to create the slickest product on the market the very first time.. I say do your absolute best to self-produce a concise package of material that will simply say "try me"..

One of the biggest problems I notice with home recording is that the stages that one goes through when turning an idea into a finished song get blurred.. It's just as tempting to think "oh I'll write the guitar solo when I record it" as it is to think "oh I'll fix it in the mix".. Honestly, if one does not take serious time to compose, arrange, orchestrate, and REHEARSE before committing to tape, then the worst of your problems isn't going to be recording.. Symphanies and orchestras are usually recorded to tape in one take. Why? Because these musicians have finished arrangements in front of them and spend countless hours alone and with the rest of the group practicing the arrangements. I'm ignoring all the technicals of recording for the moment because the most crucial part of the chain comes before you commit anything to tape.. and if you disagree with this.. then you probably won't enjoy all those classic blues and jazz recordings that were recorded in one take simply because there was no other option..

Getting that song as perfect as possible before hitting record will make it much easier to accept all those things that make home studios inferior to professional studios..

Cy
 
Cyrokk, I think your missing the whole project studio/home recording option. It is possible now in 2001 and over the last couple of years to record a prof record at home. If you know what youre doing, have the right gear, etc. The reason why bands re-recorded their first records very often is bec A. they recorded it in some low rent studio with an apathetic engineer or on their own and they didnt know what they were doing or B. the writing/performing was not pro. But the whole home rec revolution is simply about the "workers" owning and operating the means of production.


:)
 
it seems to me...

Clear you minds a sec...

If the musician/artist/producer person, had a PROJECT STUDIO set up at home, with the necessities of making a CD quality for sell type production, how would anyone know?

I mean, if they knew the schematics of e.q., mixing, vocal lead structure, and overall finalizing, how could any of you guys
say if it's DEMO or STUDIO MASTERED

Point in case --- most people gravitate to ANY artist for that matter, just because they have a CD out, now an unknown from let's say ((around your way)) can do the same thing ((with the knowledge of recording that is)) and have a great CD to sell

but the mentality is -- because they are not BACKED, or have DISTRIBUTION, and they did not finish there CD in a studio --- right off the bat you knock it as DEMO, but if that same person had someone to back them and put it out -- you would say WOW!
what a great CD .

In closing -- this industry has lulled off of many a talented people, because they have the $$$ and the facility. But neither they nor MOST A&R can tell, if you do a great mix, simply cause they LISTEN FOR HITS (that's it) So try not to knock anyone, it may take that grimey, dirty, or staticy track to be the next thing that you guys may have to immulate to have success.

Play on, do what you do, and be the best at it
 
Re: Tascam portastudio

Just wanted to comment that someone with better recording know-how
than I can produce release quality recordings with a minidisc 4 track.
I recall reading a Sound On Sound magazine article about a #1 hit in
England being recorded on a Tascam 428 cassette 4 track!
A lot of you are probably aware of Bruce Springstein's "Nebraska" album,
was also cut on a cassette 4 track.
 
Lots of different ideas.I have a band and record demos to get us jobs,internet advertizing for our web site and record personal projects.Its a hobby for me and the money I make in the music business is just gravy over my regular job.
It is possible to set up a nice project studio at home now but how many of you guys have a nice sounding room and a locker full of neumanns?Look at it like the bell curve,a few really serious folks can kick butt with home recordings.most of us are middling and then you have the small clueless batch at the other end of the curve.It takes all kinds and I think we have a pretty representative sample right here at home rec.

Tom
 
I've been recording at home for several years on various equipment. No matter how hard I try (or don't try), everyone agrees that, "this will be even better once we get in the (pro) studio".

It seems like most anyone who "hit's it big", is going to have their record company put them in a pro studio with a produced. I'd say recording in a pro studio is better than recording at home, because an artist might have a chance to work with top talent. I'm talking Daniel Lanois/Brian Eno, Glen Ballard, Mitchell Froom, etc. Any atrist that's hit it big is going to want a big name producer twisting their knobs (if they're that lucky!)

I can think about Van Halen going into ther 5150 studio and recording a horrible record like VH III. But when Donn Landee or Ted Templeman comes over to the "home studio", it sounds ten times better.

If you have the money to buy your own Electric Ladyland, Bad Animals or 5150, then invite over big name producers. Otherwise a pro studio is the only place you're going have their assistance.

If you're working at home, then I think you're not as likely to have any objective assitance. So best of luck to you.

I love Bruce Springsteen's "Nebraska", the songs are GREAT, but I do think the lack of production takes a little away from the final record. Even Bob Dylan had John Hammond to oversee his solo acoustic material.
 
necromacing,

Do you ever work at Bad Animals? Didn't see in your profile if you are in Seattle.
 
Oh, no I'm not in the Seattle area. My singer has visited Bad Animals once it said it was really cool. He'll probacbly be moving up to Seattle soon. Lucky him.
 
Ya it is pretty cool there. I was hoping to pick your brain if you were staff there. I really like the sound in the big room. They are definately one of the best up here.

I hope you like rain if you are going to relocate. It is very wet over half of the year. I miss the sun. It is however a very music oriented city with a air I haven't felt anywhere else. Well maybe Memphis?
 
I guess I should post something on topic.

I think home studios are great for learning how to work in a studio environment. It is two different worlds live music and the studio. Also a great place to write new tunes in since you can record when the idea is fresh. You have the luxury of trying new things without spending a million bucks. It is also nice to be able to take a good recording of what you want your songs to sound like to the engineer that you will work with in the big studio. By big I mean large rooms with proper acoustics. I love drums tracked in big rooms.

I also acknowledge that commercial CD's can be made in home studios given the fact that proper attention has been given to the home studios design and equipment choice. Not to mention production technics. I think is a wise choice to record in a well established commercial studio a few times to learn what to do in the home studio. An example would be Van Halen, and Aero Smith. I like some of what they did on their own better but don't feel they could have done it right from the start on their own.
 
After reading all of the post in this thread and my own experience, Comparing Home Studios to Pro Studios is an INCORRECT comparison. First off, as mention in this thread, it is not the equipment, but the engineer that makes the recordings sound professional or not. Therefore, the better comparison to Pro Studios would be Amateur Studios. Home Studios can range from both ends of the spectrum. Then comparing the actual recording can range from "demo" to "professional" qualities.

With regards to what can be done in a home depends on your equipment and recording skills and experience. If a musician is on the low end, home studios are a great place to capture the band's talent for promotion, critique, and working out parts before going into a pro studio. If their studio is on the other end, then they can record a sellable product. I would suggest to anyone doing this to send your final mix to a third party for mastering. I good mastering engineer can do wonders for a DECENT recording.
 
I wonder how often recording at a "pro" studio is like leaving your car for
repairs at a "pro" auto repair shop. Most novice home recorders like me
are not qualified to judge how much value we're receiving for the $
spent-maybe you end up paying for unnecessary (sonic) repairs!
 
chessparov said:
I wonder how often recording at a "pro" studio is like leaving your car for
repairs at a "pro" auto repair shop. Most novice home recorders like me
are not qualified to judge how much value we're receiving for the $
spent-maybe you end up paying for unnecessary (sonic) repairs!
Click to expand...

Good point. I would have to say that how much you spend on your music depends on how much you believe in your music. Don't spend more on your music then what you feel you could get in return for it.
 
Spend what ever you like as long you are happy doing what you do with what you buy. I have thousands of dollars in gear that I don't get a return on but I am happy useing it even if I use it for free (not charging a dime to the artists).

As far as the eng. being more important than the gear thats not true to some extent. You just can't pull great tone out of your ass like most people think. The soundman or recording eng. can't take crap and turn it to gold every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top