Home Recording's Dirty Little Secret

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But now I know there are many, many production secrets that are never shared with us Little Joes. And most of those secrets I cant afford anyway.

Any "secrets" that may exist - there are very few, if any, real secrets, IMHO - are based upon experience and training, and *require* that expereince and training to execute. There are no real secrets in the form of shortuts or magical settings that anybdy can dial in but the pros keep to themselves in order to save their pro status. That is myth. It's not that they are "secrets" that the pros keep to themsleves, sharing only with each other once the secret mason's handshake is given, it's just that they are techniques that require mastery of the fundamental skills to perform.

There are exceptions. The Power Plant (I think it was) was a studio that allowed no photographs of it's live room ceiling, because it has a proprietary faceted surface up there specifically designed to, when miked certain ways, created certain natural reverb effects, and they didn't want anybody duplicating their proprietary design. So yeah, occasionally that stuff does happen.

But far more often than not, at the basis of any "secret" is simply having sharp enough critical listening skills. Build on that with an intimate knowledge of just what kind of personality each piece of gear you own has and how they shape the sound that you hear (that itself requires sharp critical listening skills). Then sprinkle over the top a liberal dose of basic technical knowledge (e.g. 3:1, meter reading, calculating delay and tempo, etc.) and that's everything anybody will ever need. That's the big secret.

G.

 

[Adam P]

I got into recording just to have a way to listen to the music that my bands at the time were making. Started with a boombox that had a built in mic. Moved up to a PA mixer and miked gear run out through the RCAs to a tape deck. Up again to a Roland digital 8 track. Back to a mixer directly into the soundcard on my laptop. Upgraded to an old 20 bit Layla interface with my PC. After recording a couple friends' bands, I decided that I really liked recording others, and now I have a small console and an HD24 and some pretty good mics. "Commercial" quality has never been my paramount concern, but then again, coming from a background of independent punk/rock music, superb quality was never the most important thing. I just like to record things, and the people I record are generally pretty pleased with the outcome (even if I'm not always).

 

[CoolCat]

The band I was in had recorded in a commercial studio before I began home recording. Home recording was about writing song sketches, demo'ing songs for other band members, then possibly demo'ing in the hope of getting gigs & then getting into a studio.

that was my first impression too, and it was just fun. I started recording, without a clue what I was doing really. Its still fun, and hours can fly by so quickly doing it....its great brain candy.

voted the middle one.

I've learned more on this forum in 2 years than my first decade...really strange. bought equipment I never would have heard about, and invested in little items, such as pre-amps, that were not ever thought about..

How does one record for over 10yrs and not know what a pre-amp is, or how a mic really works, or not to use headphones for mixing...room acoustics...?

wht the fhk...

 

[Beck]

I learned recording as a young apprentice in a TV studio, so even as a teenager (18-19) I had the knowledge to both select decent equipment that I could afford and use it effectively when I began putting together a home studio. This is THE KEY to it all. I don’t know what it’s like to be caught in the marketing chaos at the level it is today.

My early system was very modest. My first multitrack for home use was the first cassette portastudio, TEAC 144. I’ve been making recordings at home with modest but capable equipment that rival commercial recordings since the early 80’s. There was never a question in my mind about it. I was a musician and composer first and I was taught recording by a gray-haired sound guru. Music forums weren’t around then to confuse the issue.

After my TV studio stint I worked in a commercial recording studio for a couple years, but eventually went into business for myself, working out of my home studio, which of course had grown quite a bit. But that was a lifetime ago… I’m a computer network consultant now. My studio is just for me and my own music, which is what it was supposed to be in the first place… but I got distracted.

And here’s a bit of irony: As the industry embraced the alleged superior digital recording and I stuck with (or more so went back to) analog, my recordings sounded even better. I didn’t have to do anything but let the recording industry dumb itself down. I stuck with what worked for me. Unfortunately, most people went along with it so there is no music industry… no infrastructure like there once was. All that sticking to my guns for nothin’. I’m holding out some hope though for Tomorrow.

Manufacturers make a lot of promises these days… much of it revolves around the perception that anything can be accomplished with a personal computer, from great sex to great music. Most people already believe that so the job of the marketeer is pretty easy.

Most everything these days (including web forums) is product oriented. But there is no best mic pre, or best plug-in, or best guitar pick, etc, etc, etc.

IMO, music recording is like the martial arts… you have to start with the fundamentals. Choose a style and master it. In my case it was Shotokan karate, but it could have been TaeKwon-Do... doesn’t matter. Only after that could I really appreciate Bruce Lee’s Jeet Kune Do. (“What the hell is he talking about now?” you may ask.) Well, you don’t start out by performing flying spinning back kicks, which is what manufacturers are telling you you’ll be able to do if you just buy their products. Of course people are disappointed.

Eh, I guess this was a bit of a rant, but I hope it helps someone.

/Rant

Now grab a cup of joe and read this book, or something similar… then start over.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180203949102

 

[Bob's Mods]

I interpret the results even more pessimistically. I read it as only 1/3 had proper expectation, that a full 2/3rds did not. I'll bet you a Neve to a Portastudio that the majority of those that "did not consider" it were still dissappointed at their first playback, and though they did not consciously think about it too much, still experienced a letdown.

G.

I'm inclined to agree with your spot on assessment.

Bob

 

[TerraMortim]

Yes, but it would be better quality if done in a commercial studio with all the bells and whistles.

It's important not to underestimate what a big factor skill is in all this. You see two extremes on message boards fairly often: People that feel you have to have the gear to do a great recording, and people that feel gear doesn't matter much at all, it's mostly about the talent.

The reality falls in between those two extremes. An engineer and band with lots of talent can make a surprisingly good recording using plain-jane gear, but indeed it would sound better if they had better tools to work with. Likewise, incredible gear will help mundane talent sound better, but won't get them all the way where they need to go.

Part of what gets overlooked is the concept of a "sweet spot". Most gear has a sweet spot, that place where if you hit it just right it sounds at it's best. The sweet spot on budget gear (if it has one) is very very slim, and limited at best. However, a good engineer will know how to listen for it and will use the gear within it's capabilities.

Great gear, on the other hand, has a much bigger sweet spot. Meaning that you can use the gear at it's optimum in a wide range of settings. This opens up creativity on the part of the engineer, and allows him or her to follow their muse more and work around the limitations of the gear less.

Engineers/artists/bands that are less experienced tend not to know what a sweet spot is, what to listen for, or how to work around and with it. When you read about big name producers and engineers using the occasional bit of budget gear, it's important to know that for the most part they are using it for a specific narrow purpose and are well aware of it's limitations and how to get the best out of it.

couldn't agree more!

Just to add a bit to the thread.. these days it's not as huge of a devide if you choose your gear wisely as to what will give you maximum bang for the buck. For a few grand you could put together a setup that's on par with some people who are out there making hit records. Seriously. Usually, keeping a lot of it in the box (software), just with a few outboard goodies is the way to go (don't understand the people who buy the cheap cheap mixers to go along with their setup...might as well nix that and mix in the box). That way, you're not worrying about high noise floors, and other low-fi issues of cheap ass gear. Hell, if you buy a copy of logic Pro (now $500), you allready have almost the entire setup that the last Nine Inch Nails album, and last Depeche Mode album, was done on. Sure, you can aruge they have nice speakers and a nice interface. . not THAT expensive tho... the NIN album was done with a MOTU 896HD as an interface, which is sub $1k, and some KRK speakers that I can't quite remember, but I think are somewhat around the $1k mark... so if you bought a computer for about $1k, then speakers, interface and software, you've only spend a few thousand bucks...and then what will you're excuse be? =D

Now, yes yes, I know, a good room for drums is helpful, great mics for vocals, etc... so... find a room to lay down drums in...doesn't even have to be a real studio room. I bet you could find a big warehouse type space that sounds really nice, rent some mics and record it... and the same can be said with a mic... just go rent a great mic for a week and lay down your vocals... it's still be much cheaper than any studio time. Really, the only thing I miss about being in a "real" studio, is the big wigs you'd meet while standing around the coffee machine, which is probably, in my opinion, the best thing about going into a studio, meeting folks, and in a sense showing off your abilities to wandering ears.

 

[CoolCat]

For a few grand you could put together a setup that's on par with some people who are out there making hit records.

Yes, the HR has come a long way.

IMO the whole digital computer thing, leveled the playing field a lot.
No longer is it the amateur on a rotty cassette deck and the pro's on a $30,000 Reel to Reel.

Now its more level, Pro's on Protools aka computer...and Hobbyists can be on Protools aka computer. for example.

still room to grow for the HR imo...the rooms & equipment for the most part.

 

[Middleman]

Just wanted to comment on a few things said above.

First and foremost the Dylan recording chain. I read this somewhere but now its from memory so take this with caution. The studios of the mid 60s generally had the following chain for vocalists. U47 or U67 into a Neve preamp or Trident or MCI, not sure what the desks were at Columbia but it was no doubt one of these. Followed by an LA2A, RCA BA6A, or Fairchild compressor then to tape.

That's the same chain used today for most vocalists. The list today might be modified as follows. U47, U67, M50, M149, C12 mics into a 1073, 1081 or 1084 Neve preamp followed by an LA2A, 1176 or Tubetech C1 into Protools. Other things are used but you see these chains over and over.

That's it sports fans. Vocally, that's what you are up against when you try to compete at home. There are ways of emulating this sound at a lower cost that can even fool the listener into thinking a track was recorded in a big studio but side by side the competition would win out. This is kind of the holy grail a project studio attempts to capture. "That sound" at a much lower cost. It can be done, I have done it. It takes a lot of listening and tweaking to figure it out. In the end however, its not quite as magical as the real thing but it can be enough to draw the listener into the song and not be distracted by an unprofessional production sound.

I totally agree on the drum room sound, tough, very tough to emulate a great drum sound in a great room. Once again, it can be emulated but as with vocals, side by side, you can tell the difference. You really have to have a great room simulator and the best drum software you can buy plus have a real drummer program the drums. Knowing parallel compression is also very helpful. It's also all about the kick and snare sound and the ambiance applied to the latter.

Other than walls of sound guitars, which is best helped with a variety of guitars amps in a decent room the rest of the instruments can be effectively recorded in most any project studio with not too expensive preamps and compressors.

Three things have to sell a track, the vocal, the snare and the bass. To a lesser extent the kick drum but it has to be EQd just right and in accordance with what people have come to expect. Other things that cannot be shortchanged are the performance and of course the inspiration. To deliver all of these in one person i.e. the situation many find themselves in, is a daunting task.

Two other things that define a pro vs amateur production are delay and reverb EQ tuning. You really have to know this to create an ambiance to your tracks. A lot of the older studios had special filters just for this purpose. There is very little documentation on how to EQ reverbs. It's trial and error because most of this knowledge is in the heads of people who do this for a living. They generally don't pass this secret sauce around.

The dirty secret of home recording is that there is a lot of really bad gear in the under $1000 price range that simply cannot deliver a world class sound. You have to weed yourself through the jungle and watch your investments. Otherwise you will run out of money before you get some acceptable results. At the same time, there is a lot of really good gear in the under $1000 price range that can produce an acceptable emulation of world class sound.

The shortest distance to a great sound is having the money for the really good gear over the same amount of time you have to invest in learning to record. If you don't have the cash your learning experience is delayed by the added layer of making inferior gear accomplish amazing results. Most of us take the longer road because the golden chain above is at least a $15000 investment for just a mic, preamp and compressor. Many home setups don't even reach that number including the computer, software and instruments being recorded.

By the way, Bob's Mod, this is one of the best thread topics I have seen in awhile. Thanks for starting.

 

[Beck]

Yes, the HR has come a long way.

IMO the whole digital computer thing, leveled the playing field a lot.
No longer is it the amateur on a rotty cassette deck and the pro's on a $30,000 Reel to Reel.

Now its more level, Pro's on Protools aka computer...and Hobbyists can be on Protools aka computer. for example.

Yeah, there's a level playing field all right, but not in the way you probably mean. The bar was lowered to level the field. It’s pretty much the way Walter Sear says it...

"As the professional studios switched to digital recording, the sound got so bad that anyone could do it as badly at home using the same equipment or the newer, cheaper home digital multi-tracks. They got the same terrible,unmusical results. Why spend money on a professional studio if you could do the same thing at home."
- Walter E. Sear
What have They Done to My Art?

 

[Greg_L]

I didn't even know home-recording was possible until about 2 years ago. My wife got me a Tascam US122 for Christmas 2005. I didn't even know what it was. She installed the supplied Cubase LE on the trusty porn-machine, hooked up the Tascam, and turned me loose. My only expectation was aggravation because I'm a moron. I'm still a moron, but with better gear now, and I'm mostly pretty happy with my stupid songs.

 

[DavidK]

Any "secrets" that may exist - there are very few, if any, real secrets, IMHO - are based upon experience and training, and *require* that expereince and training to execute.

Here's the real secret:

Those who work the hardest succeed.

IMO, gear is inconsequential in a roundabout way. Buying the same gear as Lebron James would be getting a basketball and some nice sneakers. So what? It has nothing to do with anything. I could go out in buy in EMG machine too, its not going to make me a doctor.

Ultimately, to become good at something doesnt take years. It takes decades.

 

[Beck]

Here's the real secret:

Those who work the hardest succeed.

IMO, gear is inconsequential in a roundabout way. Buying the same gear as Lebron James would be getting a basketball and some nice sneakers. So what? It has nothing to do with anything. I could go out in buy in EMG machine too, its not going to make me a doctor.

Ultimately, to become good at something doesnt take years. It takes decades.

I agree with that. I often use the analogy that being able to afford an F-16 fighter jet doesn't make one a fighter pilot, much less an ace.

As for me, even after nearly 30 years of recording I still seek out new information, try new products and continue to mature as a composer/musician/recordist.

Sure, there are secrets of technique and method as in any field and I agree with Glen that they are revealed with experience and thus hidden from the novice, though they be in plain sight.

 

[TerraMortim]

Yeah, there's a level playing field all right, but not in the way you probably mean. The bar was lowered to level the field. It’s pretty much the way Walter Sear says it...

"As the professional studios switched to digital recording, the sound got so bad that anyone could do it as badly at home using the same equipment or the newer, cheaper home digital multi-tracks. They got the same terrible,unmusical results. Why spend money on a professional studio if you could do the same thing at home."
- Walter E. Sear
What have They Done to My Art?

and then digital recording matured and this argument was outdated... oops, did I say that? btw...lots of really good classic stuff, even on...*gasp* analog tape.. was recorded in homes as well as big studios.. That guy is silly if he actually thinks that way beyond the early shitty 8bit or 12bit digital monstrosities that were the early excuse for recording equipment. Why is it that these analog is the only good way guys always ended up freaking out when the first ever digital shit gear came out and forever decided that there was no way it could ever be high quality...it's a bit like an old man waffling on all day about how in his day everyone resoected each other, he fucked 27 women a day without getting an STD, the skies rained down with chocolate and silver dollars, and people danced and skipped around singing joyously.

I mean, it really is...silly... like that guy sweet "25 years" nubs that was taking time out of his busy drag show schedule to go on and on about how he had a solid gold transport for his tape machine of the gods, and by powering up his neve, he would instantly record gold records, and have a harem of concubines fighting over the chance to polish his knob while he snorted coke through the hollowed bones of us, lesser digital audio heathens. All the while rattling on and on trying to "confuse" people by using common abreviations that mostly anyone who's even looked at a tape machine from a distance probably has seen and understands, as if it was the long searched for deep dark secret of the freemasons that they learned all those years ago in the middle east...at last, we finally dun figerrd that shit out.

 

[rockinrocker]

It's important not to underestimate what a big factor skill is in all this. You see two extremes on message boards fairly often: People that feel you have to have the gear to do a great recording, and people that feel gear doesn't matter much at all, it's mostly about the talent.

The reality falls in between those two extremes. An engineer and band with lots of talent can make a surprisingly good recording using plain-jane gear, but indeed it would sound better if they had better tools to work with. Likewise, incredible gear will help mundane talent sound better, but won't get them all the way where they need to go.

quote of the year right there.

i didn't vote 'cause i didn't really have any specific expectations when i got into doing this stuff, i just wanted to make the most with the least.

then i heard the way my bass sounded through a killen' LDC in to a good neve clone and i thought, wellllll....maybe not the least.....

 

[CoolCat]

Yeah, there's a level playing field all right, but not in the way you probably mean. The bar was lowered to level the field. It’s pretty much the way Walter Sear says it...

"As the professional studios switched to digital recording, the sound got so bad that anyone could do it as badly at home using the same equipment or the newer, cheaper home digital multi-tracks. They got the same terrible,unmusical results. Why spend money on a professional studio if you could do the same thing at home."
- Walter E. Sear
What have They Done to My Art?

nah...I think that doesn't apply today at all. That person was referring to the entire Digital Format as ruining music and as posted probably referring to 8bit... apparently not much of a visionary of technology.
(maybe a bit over dramatic too? What Have They Done to My Art? ...gimme a break...was ART Walter's to own?? Walter sounds like a wanker.... )

anyway I was referring to cassette crap compared to todays HR Digital Pro Tools with 24-48 or 24-192, and all the other great gear that can be easily be put in the HR arena that is the same as in the Pro Studios...the HDrive being the main one. A hobbyist can have one that equals a Pro studio as in Pro Tools. I guess its nothing new, ADAT units began hitting the pro studios and HR... digital tape. But a computer is even more common than an ADAT.

Also no ones mentioned the information on forums and the WWW is also there expediting the knowledge for newbies and HR "non-professionals". Ocean of information.
A Shure SM7, for example, is heard about early on now.
Having a focus on a nice vocal chain immediately is common, newbies read about a nice DI Bass setup and mixing tips etc..on and on......etc.. faster and faster...and slap that SM57 in front of your tube amp...and stop making your life difficult.

If you and Walter think Digital ruined music you should have heard my reel to reel and cassette stuff....it may change your mind that tape is good.

 

[Dogman]

I started home recording after borrowing a friend's portastudio. I was under no illusions

Basicly the same scenario here...my wife bought me a little digital 4 track to get me to play again, and I now record on a pc with minimal gear...

Sure I want a good sound, but I only record myself for something to do, so most of my time is spent learning and experimenting. I like finding out what people do to achieve the good sounds, that's all part of the fun.

 

[Bob's Mods]

SonicA's replay is dead nuts on target (as always). Everyone is really bareing their soul here.

There are just so many claims out there. Separating the wheat from the chaff can be time consuming and expensive. This is where our community here helps out.

I would like to offer a nugget of gold. Getting to a more commercial sound involves getting your mix to sound wide without getting washed out. Check out UpStereo. This plug is worth many times its cost.....$0. Its a fabulous plug for helping you get your home recorded mixes closer to a commercial level. It is a gem and one of my favorites. Work with it, tweak it. A little means a lot.

http://www.quikquak.com/Prod_UpStereo.html

I highly recommend this one.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Here's the real secret:

Those who work the hardest succeed.

DING DING DING DING!

'nuff said. Thread closed

G.

 

[CoolCat]

its closed?

i liked this one too... dang

 

[TerraMortim]

Here's the real secret:

Those who work the hardest succeed.

I also agree. That's the real secret.