Home Recording's Dirty Little Secret

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob's Mods
  • Start date Start date

What were your home recording expectations vs commercial high end studio recordings?

  • I was not expecting from the get go I could make high end commercial studio recordings.

    Votes: 529 40.1%

  • I had not considered the question of home recording quality vs commercial quality when I started.

    Votes: 287 21.8%

  • I expected I could reasonably equal the quality of commercial recordings.

    Votes: 502 38.1%
  • Total voters
    1,318
Mixing in the box more the issue???? Maybe????

This thread really turned into a tape vs digital thing a ways back. After some thought on the subject, whether its tape or digital, this is only the medium that the sound is glued to. Its just media...plain and simple. The early problems of digital appear to have been largely worked out. Tape seems to have some sonic character to it as oppossed to digital which is uncolored. I believe that its not about the medium but more about the room, the mics, the engineers skill and very importantly the musical skill of artist being recorded. All this was stated earlier. Gear does play a role but not as big a role as I thought. After hearing many good mixes that were recorded in the digital domain...I believe the tape vs digital thing is a complete non issue. If you like the character of tape thats fine but its out of the rhelm of reality for the typical home wrecker. If you or your band is musical, you got a good engineer, a decent room and some decent mics...the groove should end up on the media.
The issue I suspect that is bigger than a tape vs digital thing is mixing in the box vs out of the box (analog mixing). After some experience with recording and yes..some mods to my gear...I'm getting very musical sounding mixes. The issue I face is when it comes to mix time. I have always had a tough time getting mixing in the box to give each track its own sense of space. I have learned how to massage that problem reasonably well however. One trick is to keep the track count low. There are others. Sonic A states he prefers the sound of mixing out of the box and he's one of the top pros on this site. If its good enough for him then its good enough for me. If you haven't read his bio yet you should. My early problem with flat sounding mixes may more have been related to inexperience, a lousy room and mixing in the box. There were some other threads relating to mixing in the box that were very good. Again though, mixing out of the box using an analog console can be very costly and most likely be impractical for the typical home wrecker with limited funds and time and freedom of space to record. I have found that the free plug in UpStereo to be a God send for giving your mixes some width. Like all things you have to be careful with it, know how to use it correctly and not over do it.

Bob Mod
 
I went into my first Portastudio with eyes wide open - no illusions about being the next Abby Road.
Fortunately I've kept that same perspective - I want to write / record my own music (and friends' music) up to a decent Demo Level. Any more than that is just not fun for me. Let the Engineers obsess about SN Ratios / impedance matching / minute differences between mics, yada yada.
Yea, things sound better in a real studio, but home studio is the place to work things out , make mistakes , rewrite, etc at my own pace.
 
Bob's Mods said:
This thread really turned into a tape vs digital thing a ways back. After some thought on the subject, whether its tape or digital, this is only the medium that the sound is glued to. Its just media...plain and simple. The early problems of digital appear to have been largely worked out. Tape seems to have some sonic character to it as oppossed to digital which is uncolored. I believe that its not about the medium but more about the room, the mics, the engineers skill and very importantly the musical skill of artist being recorded. All this was stated earlier. Gear does play a role but not as big a role as I thought. After hearing many good mixes that were recorded in the digital domain...I believe the tape vs digital thing is a complete non issue. If you like the character of tape thats fine but its out of the rhelm of reality for the typical home wrecker. If you or your band is musical, you got a good engineer, a decent room and some decent mics...the groove should end up on the media.
The issue I suspect that is bigger than a tape vs digital thing is mixing in the box vs out of the box (analog mixing). After some experience with recording and yes..some mods to my gear...I'm getting very musical sounding mixes. The issue I face is when it comes to mix time. I have always had a tough time getting mixing in the box to give each track its own sense of space. I have learned how to massage that problem reasonably well however. One trick is to keep the track count low. There are others. Sonic A states he prefers the sound of mixing out of the box and he's one of the top pros on this site. If its good enough for him then its good enough for me. If you haven't read his bio yet you should. My early problem with flat sounding mixes may more have been related to inexperience, a lousy room and mixing in the box. There were some other threads relating to mixing in the box that were very good. Again though, mixing out of the box using an analog console can be very costly and most likely be impractical for the typical home wrecker with limited funds and time and freedom of space to record. I have found that the free plug in UpStereo to be a God send for giving your mixes some width. Like all things you have to be careful with it, know how to use it correctly and not over do it.

Bob Mod
Click to expand...

Above all, take your time. You’ll revise your conclusions with continuing research and experience.

:)
 
Beck said:
Above all, take your time. You’ll revise your conclusions with continuing research and experience.

:)
Click to expand...


Yup. He will learn that better converters give better results, among other things. I agree with you completely.
 
Beck said:
Nice deal! Even if you never get around to using them yourself, you may make a small fortune with them since that particular tape is no longer made. Check the post below to see if they are the older or newer formula. You can tell by the box design.

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=2864227&postcount=68

And back on topic, I agree, experience is the most important factor.

I might have said it in this thread already (I say it now and then)… take someone that thinks their problem is equipment, let them run loose at Abbey Road for two weeks and we'll find they still can’t make a decent recording.

;)
Click to expand...

They have the same design as in the photo. A few are Quantegy, so even older, I'd imagine, but most look identicle to that.
 
32-20-Blues said:
Depends who the 'favourite artists' that you're trying to emulate are. I can get pretty close to late career Tom Waits. Obviously, with my limited experience and comparatively cheap gear, I can't come close to the sound of a slick, pristine Phil Collins album.

(Which is a great thing, believe me. :D)
Click to expand...

Phil Collins recorded and mixed most of the stuff in his own home studio :D There are some things he brought to a commercial studio, but a lot was done at home.
 
MCI2424 said:
Its a poorer craftsman who uses substandard tools.

Just thought I would throw that in. :D
Click to expand...

It's an ever worse craftsman who buys the most expensive thing out there, regardless of quality, and expects it to be good.

THis is starting to seem like a school yard argument, yes?
 
TerraMortim said:
It's an ever worse craftsman who buys the most expensive thing out there, regardless of quality, and expects it to be good.

THis is starting to seem like a school yard argument, yes?
Click to expand...

Acually, I never said expensive = quality. Re-read my statement.
 
yea uhmmm

I thought I could at least sound as good as some of the early 60's recordings. Nope.

You can record a great album at home but you if you notice most bands send them out to be mixed and mastered by...well ... a master.

So my stuff sounds great (to me) at home on my system with my studio monitors where I mixed it. When I take it and play it on someone elses stereo ...I'm thinking I have to do better. Arrgggg. I am very stuborn though and still believe I can do this without spending more than 10 grand (including all my instuments) I think I can, I think I can , I think I can....
 
geewizu2 said:
So my stuff sounds great (to me) at home on my system with my studio monitors where I mixed it. When I take it and play it on someone elses stereo ...I'm thinking I have to do better. Arrgggg. I am very stuborn though and still believe I can do this without spending more than 10 grand (including all my instuments) I think I can, I think I can , I think I can....
Click to expand...
It's called the art of translation; knowing that if things sound like A in the studio, that they will sound like B elsewhere, so in roder to geth things to sound like A elsehwere you aveto make it sound like C in the studio.

The first step os getting you room (first) and monitors (second) selected and set up so that for YOUR EARS the difference between A and C is minimal. Put another way, the less your room and monitors affect what you hear, the more you can trust what you're hearing.

Then you need to learn the translation that's left. If - just for one example - your midranges sound fine in the studo but too harsh in the real world, then learn to mix with your mids a bit deader than you like in the studio. And so on.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
It's called the art of translation; knowing that if things sound like A in the studio, that they will sound like B elsewhere, so in roder to geth things to sound like A elsehwere you aveto make it sound like C in the studio.

The first step os getting you room (first) and monitors (second) selected and set up so that for YOUR EARS the difference between A and C is minimal. Put another way, the less your room and monitors affect what you hear, the more you can trust what you're hearing.

Then you need to learn the translation that's left. If - just for one example - your midranges sound fine in the studo but too harsh in the real world, then learn to mix with your mids a bit deader than you like in the studio. And so on.

G.
Click to expand...

I usually like to make my mixes sound like D. Is that wrong? :P
 
okay..good. I thought I was doing something wrong. I often tune down to R... it's the secret to getting that REAAALLLLY heavy sound, you know?
 
i picked option 2... because when i first started recording, i simply wanted something i could listen to & let my friends hear as well. funny part of it was that i borrowed the 4-track and the bass; had a piece of crap mic; and knew absolutely nothing about what i was doing. i simply thought i would figure it out as i went along.

then i was turned on to mtv's music generator on the playstation1. i started programming everything, and then added the vocals by running the (same piece of crap) mic and the audio from the ps1 through a cheep radio shack 2-channel mixer into a tape deck. later i did the same thing with generator 2 on the ps2 into a cd recorder.
now i'm playing the stuff again; recording it into a computer and (while still having no "real" clue what i'm doing) makin my music my way.

it sounds good enough to sell. each disc gets better than the last (through trial & error and learning more as i go)... but i'm not trying to fool myself by thinking i'll sound like some major label studio either...
just a damn good nut who has learned it all on the fly.

sorry about the ramblin there...
 
Cool.............................
Did we ever solve the puzzle of which sounds better?
Was everyone converted to analog?
 
yep...everyone went out and bought a studer, and we're all on our way to selling platinum records about now.
 
when i joined the site, i had already been doing home recording for over 10 years in some capacity, and while my recordings had improved they still sucked. in a quest to improve on my home recordings, i joined this forum. since then, the improvement has been exponential. i've made probably a 1000% improvement in the past 2 years, whereas the previous 10 years yielded about a 5% improvement overall.
it would have been foolish to expect that my studio and skills would rival that of a multi-million dollar facility with a top-tier engineering team. i just knew that i could certainly be doing far better home recordings than i had been. and now i'm reaping the benefits! no "buyer's" remorse here! thanks hr forum! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top