C
chris2002rock
New member
If you think about how diverse pop music is, many of us can make music of that quality in production. But there are certainly going to be broken hearts, depending on genre more than anything else.
bileshake
Member
I've got a pile of gear I had to have which now seems like junk and I've evolved from curious hobbyist to full bore home studio pack rat. I've never really finished anything more rewarding than the two mic demos I used to do with my old 8track. Now I'm moving and eventually building a new studio with a massive blank canvas. Now that I have the room for proper basement studio, I'm wondering if I will ever be happy and should even bother.
elbandito
potential lunch winner
This is a thread, you just made a post. Unfortunately, your post is in an inappropriate thread. You should start a new one in the main part of this forum.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
He posted that three years ago !
elbandito
potential lunch winner
Apparently I too need a lesson on posting... At least on the part that involves looking at dates. Haha
W
wiguan88
New member
I believe with passion and persistence. Trial and error. Failed experiments.
I can compete or equal to the "commercial" recording standard.
Of course it will be not an over night success.
I can compete or equal to the "commercial" recording standard.
Of course it will be not an over night success.
Eleanor Fudd
Member
Still, the post is as valid now as it was then.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
It's validity is not in question. I pointed out how long ago it was posted because the Bandit replied to Urmy under the impression that "Urmy" would see the reply. Urmy hasn't been around since that post in 2008. So the reply was a waste of a post. 5 minutes that elbandito will never get back. 
elbandito
potential lunch winner
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! And now i'm five minutes closer to the grave with nothing to show for it. My obituary will read:It ... was a waste of a post. 5 minutes that elbandito will never get back.
"Here lies a man
who had nothing but time.
But he wasted it all
in a forum reply."
Last edited:
haunt
Maker of Noise
Hi. I suppose this is the part where I attempt to establish credibility to back up whatever opinion I'm about to share. Perhaps sprinkle some witticisms, jargon and cheeky humor in order to win over and impress whichever popular clique of respected people seem to matter. I read the first 31 pages of this thread, being sick for the past week, and there is quite a bit to address, going back 3 years. I'll begin on topic and try to keep it as brief as possible but I'm a wordy creep who tries to be a man of few words so no promises.
I didn't vote in the poll, but option 3 is close to what I would choose, if the question of "quality" weren't so open-ended. I absolutely believe that I can make *better sounding* audio than commercial recordings because of my personal aesthetic: a HQ lofi sound, which I like to characterize as a gritty sparkle midfi, with nostalgic retro-futurism. Apparently it's referred to as hauntology, which is somewhat recent news to me as I felt on the verge of discovering virgin ground in music, 2011. Silly me for having such an assumption.
So while I realize that there's little hope for me and my tascam 246+mpc60+stuff to match a highly polished pop band's record done in a million dollar room, much of my style is electronic based; which I can absolutely compete with the big boys thanks to the advances in technology becoming affordable and ubiquitous. I have a distinct advantage, however and that is a remarkable sense of hearing. I'm sure to draw ire for the implication of the old "golden ear" audiophile line but I'm almost 31 and can hear the full 20hz-20k spectrum. This is by no means an attempt at posturing, I honestly can't be around those sonic pest control devices that cycle on and off every few seconds or I'll go postal. While I can't hear those uppermost highs immediately upon leaving a noisy environment, when given a few minutes of near silence as a reference point it becomes clear as night & day. I've taken great steps to protect my hearing, especially after visiting a doctor in my early 20s, having her make a big fuss in discovering that my ear canals curve upwards into my head, apparently like a dog. I was flattered & insulted at the same time, as the phrasing was a bit curt. If that weren't enough, I made her repeat herself.
So where I'm going with this is to give the finger of reprimand to people who like to use spec sheets & computer equipment & questionable studies & other peoples' opinions & marketing propaganda to tell them how something sounds, or what people can hear rather than using their own ears; even going so far as to deny the possibility that someone else might be able to hear what the majority do not. Most people involved in music are familiar with the concept of having a "trained ear" as without it the playing of fretless stringed instruments would be nearly impossible. There are many variables involved in the human perception of sound, from the source recording itself, to the media format used, to the equipment it's being played on, to the listener, to the acoustic space to the style of music and so on.
I grew up with CDs and tapes, mostly. Some records, but I didn't get my own turntable until 2003. I was under the impression that CDs "sounded the best" because they did to me at the time, which I now understand had more to do with the equipment I was using to listen on than the music or format itself. Like most people I associated the sound of tapes with cheap walkman players and consumer electronics. Only when I heard a tape played through a pro deck in a serious audio system did I feel like I had been cheated, even lied to. The biggest realization came, however when I heard my favorite songs on vinyl for the first time. Then again when I first heard that vinyl through a Fisher 400. It turned my world upside down, the biggest audio game changer in my life. From there it was no going back, the audio bug bit me and has proven more addictive than the purest designer drugs.
Anyway. Analog audio recording formats, specifically magnetic tape and direct disc cutting are truer to the source than their digital counterparts for a few simple fundamental reasons. In our world, all sound is analog; it is continuous and physical and affected by the environment...since we do not exist in a vacuum. Due to exponential decay, signal gets lost in the noise, whereas in digital sampling an artificial endpoint is set against the silent backdrop.
Consider a double bass. If you pluck the open E-string, it keeps vibrating after you can no longer audibly hear it, and continues to affect the surrounding strings and air. So if you then pluck an open-A, the resulting sound is impacted by artifacts from the other vibrating E-string affecting the immediate environment. It now behaves differently than if the open A were plucked first. As mentioned earlier, analog is a constant sound; digital is spread throughout clustered packets with a vacuum between them. This makes it ideal for low signal:noise like soft classical music, but it is fundamentally inaccurate reproduction due to the aforementioned reasons, combined with what is known as linear prediction. There is no computer guesswork involved in the arrangement of magnetic particles on tape or a cutting head as it transfers sound wave information to acetate, glass or vinyl. Yes, there is a coloration of the sound but I believe it to be truer to the source, and the stylus scraping in the groove or tape hiss takes the place of environmental air noise you would hear in a concert hall or at any live venue. There is never absolute silence, period. This is not to say digital is 'bad' by any means [hello, I love my 12bit grit] but it just simply is not analog, no matter how hard it tries. Its primary strength is that of convenience, quality of fidelity is not the focus, and I say that as someone who really likes the *good enough* sound of 24/96. Even for vinyl/tape rip archiving
Thanks for your time, that is if you read what I have to say with an open mind. If not, oh well. Hearing is believing, seen.
PS: mshilarious if your offer of $50 still stands...
I didn't vote in the poll, but option 3 is close to what I would choose, if the question of "quality" weren't so open-ended. I absolutely believe that I can make *better sounding* audio than commercial recordings because of my personal aesthetic: a HQ lofi sound, which I like to characterize as a gritty sparkle midfi, with nostalgic retro-futurism. Apparently it's referred to as hauntology, which is somewhat recent news to me as I felt on the verge of discovering virgin ground in music, 2011. Silly me for having such an assumption.
So while I realize that there's little hope for me and my tascam 246+mpc60+stuff to match a highly polished pop band's record done in a million dollar room, much of my style is electronic based; which I can absolutely compete with the big boys thanks to the advances in technology becoming affordable and ubiquitous. I have a distinct advantage, however and that is a remarkable sense of hearing. I'm sure to draw ire for the implication of the old "golden ear" audiophile line but I'm almost 31 and can hear the full 20hz-20k spectrum. This is by no means an attempt at posturing, I honestly can't be around those sonic pest control devices that cycle on and off every few seconds or I'll go postal. While I can't hear those uppermost highs immediately upon leaving a noisy environment, when given a few minutes of near silence as a reference point it becomes clear as night & day. I've taken great steps to protect my hearing, especially after visiting a doctor in my early 20s, having her make a big fuss in discovering that my ear canals curve upwards into my head, apparently like a dog. I was flattered & insulted at the same time, as the phrasing was a bit curt. If that weren't enough, I made her repeat herself.
So where I'm going with this is to give the finger of reprimand to people who like to use spec sheets & computer equipment & questionable studies & other peoples' opinions & marketing propaganda to tell them how something sounds, or what people can hear rather than using their own ears; even going so far as to deny the possibility that someone else might be able to hear what the majority do not. Most people involved in music are familiar with the concept of having a "trained ear" as without it the playing of fretless stringed instruments would be nearly impossible. There are many variables involved in the human perception of sound, from the source recording itself, to the media format used, to the equipment it's being played on, to the listener, to the acoustic space to the style of music and so on.
I grew up with CDs and tapes, mostly. Some records, but I didn't get my own turntable until 2003. I was under the impression that CDs "sounded the best" because they did to me at the time, which I now understand had more to do with the equipment I was using to listen on than the music or format itself. Like most people I associated the sound of tapes with cheap walkman players and consumer electronics. Only when I heard a tape played through a pro deck in a serious audio system did I feel like I had been cheated, even lied to. The biggest realization came, however when I heard my favorite songs on vinyl for the first time. Then again when I first heard that vinyl through a Fisher 400. It turned my world upside down, the biggest audio game changer in my life. From there it was no going back, the audio bug bit me and has proven more addictive than the purest designer drugs.
Anyway. Analog audio recording formats, specifically magnetic tape and direct disc cutting are truer to the source than their digital counterparts for a few simple fundamental reasons. In our world, all sound is analog; it is continuous and physical and affected by the environment...since we do not exist in a vacuum. Due to exponential decay, signal gets lost in the noise, whereas in digital sampling an artificial endpoint is set against the silent backdrop.
Consider a double bass. If you pluck the open E-string, it keeps vibrating after you can no longer audibly hear it, and continues to affect the surrounding strings and air. So if you then pluck an open-A, the resulting sound is impacted by artifacts from the other vibrating E-string affecting the immediate environment. It now behaves differently than if the open A were plucked first. As mentioned earlier, analog is a constant sound; digital is spread throughout clustered packets with a vacuum between them. This makes it ideal for low signal:noise like soft classical music, but it is fundamentally inaccurate reproduction due to the aforementioned reasons, combined with what is known as linear prediction. There is no computer guesswork involved in the arrangement of magnetic particles on tape or a cutting head as it transfers sound wave information to acetate, glass or vinyl. Yes, there is a coloration of the sound but I believe it to be truer to the source, and the stylus scraping in the groove or tape hiss takes the place of environmental air noise you would hear in a concert hall or at any live venue. There is never absolute silence, period. This is not to say digital is 'bad' by any means [hello, I love my 12bit grit] but it just simply is not analog, no matter how hard it tries. Its primary strength is that of convenience, quality of fidelity is not the focus, and I say that as someone who really likes the *good enough* sound of 24/96. Even for vinyl/tape rip archiving
Thanks for your time, that is if you read what I have to say with an open mind. If not, oh well. Hearing is believing, seen.
PS: mshilarious if your offer of $50 still stands...
D
DenverDrummer
New member
My 2 cents:
No I don't expect on my $3K budget or so to sound like a major studio with millions of dollars worth of equipment, just as I wouldn't expect a $300 Epiphone to sound like a $3000 Gibson, but I've heard some great sounding Epiphones for not alot of money. Similarly, I've heard some great "home studio" recordings. Wheather or not they "rival" big time studios, is subjective.
Second of all, most studio recordings I've heard of late, have been overcompressed crap IMO. In the "loudness wars" engineers have killed musicality and dynamic expression for the sake of a few db's. We are told this is "good" because everyone is doing it, and we are just supposed to accept off hand to run as much compression and peak limiters as possible, even though back in the good old analog days, no one really did this, and you look at those wave files and they look like porcupines with all the peaks and valleys, but no one complained.
I think over time you can improve your sound by upgrading your stuff, and collecting microphones. Other than that, just be a realist and have fun and make music.
Cheers!
No I don't expect on my $3K budget or so to sound like a major studio with millions of dollars worth of equipment, just as I wouldn't expect a $300 Epiphone to sound like a $3000 Gibson, but I've heard some great sounding Epiphones for not alot of money. Similarly, I've heard some great "home studio" recordings. Wheather or not they "rival" big time studios, is subjective.
Second of all, most studio recordings I've heard of late, have been overcompressed crap IMO. In the "loudness wars" engineers have killed musicality and dynamic expression for the sake of a few db's. We are told this is "good" because everyone is doing it, and we are just supposed to accept off hand to run as much compression and peak limiters as possible, even though back in the good old analog days, no one really did this, and you look at those wave files and they look like porcupines with all the peaks and valleys, but no one complained.
I think over time you can improve your sound by upgrading your stuff, and collecting microphones. Other than that, just be a realist and have fun and make music.
Cheers!
CapacityWKS.
New member
I got into recording when I was 11yrs old.
One of my friends just got a 4 track tascam recorder and we thought we were better then abbey road!
I used to slow down the pitch and do a little "walk-up" lead in E and during playback, I put it at the normal speed and it sounded like I was "surfing with the alien"!
Yeah i guess we thought that we could get the best sound that anyone ever heard; but when when I was a pre-teen, anything I tried, I thought I was the best at.
It wasn't until I hit high school and met some musicians that were better then me, did I realize I wasn't as good as I thought in my head.
Man this takes me back.
Thanks for the walk down memory lane.
Good thread!
One of my friends just got a 4 track tascam recorder and we thought we were better then abbey road!
I used to slow down the pitch and do a little "walk-up" lead in E and during playback, I put it at the normal speed and it sounded like I was "surfing with the alien"!
Yeah i guess we thought that we could get the best sound that anyone ever heard; but when when I was a pre-teen, anything I tried, I thought I was the best at.
It wasn't until I hit high school and met some musicians that were better then me, did I realize I wasn't as good as I thought in my head.
Man this takes me back.
Thanks for the walk down memory lane.
Good thread!
T
Toker41
Better Than You
IDK...I think what I'm doing here sounds better than things I have done in multi-million dollar studios with well known producers. It's not about what you have, but what you can do with it. All the cheap, easy accessible home equipment isn't going to help anyone that really doesn't know how to use it, or doesn't have good ears. Everybody with a mic and PC thinks they have a studio, and are producers, these days.
Last edited:
elbandito
potential lunch winner
Ain't that the truth: 30 Dollars/Per Song - I Provide the MIC and I MIX for YOU
" I can perform all sorts of vocal effects, and I know probably every technique there is to know in audio engineering, simply, I know my stuff. The microphone that I own is a condenser microphone, Audio Technica, AT2020 Cardiod, The traditional microphone used by almost all famous artists because of it's clarity"
Last edited:
c7sus
Disenfranchised Member
Ain't that the truth: 30 Dollars/Per Song - I Provide the MIC and I MIX for YOU
" I can perform all sorts of vocal effects, and I know probably every technique there is to know in audio engineering, simply, I know my stuff. The microphone that I own is a condenser microphone, Audio Technica, AT2020 Cardiod, The traditional microphone used by almost all famous artists because of it's clarity"
Yeah, Frank Sinatra used the AT2020. So did the Beatles and Gilbert Gottfried. This guy knows his stuff.
I may have to move to Toronto to make my next record.
Hakea
New member
Hi,
I started with very low expectations, and was effortlessly able to meet them. I thought I'd sound like shit and I did.
So I put some effort in. Not much you understand - I'm not that energetic - but enough to improve.
Do I expect to sound like a commercial recording though?
Put it this way, I bought a piece of gear that came bundled with Pro Tools, a stack of plug-ins and Melodyne. What's mostly missing now is a few thousand hours of reading manuals and practicing getting the skills up to speed. And if my efforts still sound a bit rough compared to what I hear commercially then I'll simply start listening to shittier commercial stuff. There's plenty around... I'll get there, there's always a way...
I started with very low expectations, and was effortlessly able to meet them. I thought I'd sound like shit and I did.
So I put some effort in. Not much you understand - I'm not that energetic - but enough to improve.
Do I expect to sound like a commercial recording though?
Put it this way, I bought a piece of gear that came bundled with Pro Tools, a stack of plug-ins and Melodyne. What's mostly missing now is a few thousand hours of reading manuals and practicing getting the skills up to speed. And if my efforts still sound a bit rough compared to what I hear commercially then I'll simply start listening to shittier commercial stuff. There's plenty around... I'll get there, there's always a way...
Hakea
New member
To be a bit less flippant than my reply above...
It's worth considering what people mean by "commercial quality recording". If that means could my equipment be good enough to record and mix something that people might be willing to buy, then the answer is a resounding "YES!". The physical gear is adequate for the job and the software most certainly is. The biggest missing link is currently knowledge and experience, but I'm having a lot of fun getting that and I expect to get there if I put enough work in. All the people who did succeed in learning what they needed to also started where I did.
Of course, if you are determined to prove the case in the negative then you could always come up with a situation, or a specific recording, where a professional studio was required. But all music isn't like that, and most doesn't have to be. I have no doubt that I could make commercial quality recording on my gear - I have a friend who has similar equipment who does exactly that. What he has that I still don't is the experience. However, I'm currently haunting his studio and emptying his brain out.....bwaaaaaa haaaa..... so it might be quicker than I thought.
Cheers,
Chris
It's worth considering what people mean by "commercial quality recording". If that means could my equipment be good enough to record and mix something that people might be willing to buy, then the answer is a resounding "YES!". The physical gear is adequate for the job and the software most certainly is. The biggest missing link is currently knowledge and experience, but I'm having a lot of fun getting that and I expect to get there if I put enough work in. All the people who did succeed in learning what they needed to also started where I did.
Of course, if you are determined to prove the case in the negative then you could always come up with a situation, or a specific recording, where a professional studio was required. But all music isn't like that, and most doesn't have to be. I have no doubt that I could make commercial quality recording on my gear - I have a friend who has similar equipment who does exactly that. What he has that I still don't is the experience. However, I'm currently haunting his studio and emptying his brain out.....bwaaaaaa haaaa..... so it might be quicker than I thought.
Cheers,
Chris
E
elevation1043
New member
There is always be a noticeable difference to me, and it's usually pretty apparent when a recording is done at home because of the songwriting if nothing else. I think aside from having great songwriting and great musicians, it's the mastering that is going to really make a recording sound polished and commercial. Regardless of how much time I take on a recording and mixing, the commercial recordings always seem to have a bit more depth, width & airiness...and most likely is louder or "seems" louder. I really think that is in Mastering.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Comparing a commercial recording, to a home type one, has one huge difference to me. Commercial recordings are usually done by musicians that are worthy of making commercial recordings. Recorded in a studio that can be paid for by a musician worthy of commercial sounding recordings. Without talent, either by the musician, or the engineer or producer, there is no chance of getting close.
Anyone can make decent recordings. But even a great engineer cannot make crap sound like greatness. That being said however, I bet that a great engineer could make a great band sound great on low end gear.
I hope to find greatness in musicians. Greatness for myself as an engineer won't happen without given great product to produce.
Anyone can make decent recordings. But even a great engineer cannot make crap sound like greatness. That being said however, I bet that a great engineer could make a great band sound great on low end gear.
I hope to find greatness in musicians. Greatness for myself as an engineer won't happen without given great product to produce.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I guess it also depends which era of 'commercial quality' one is thinking of when they answer the question. And dare I say it, alot depends on whether one is talking purely from a sonic point of view or in terms of songs. I heartilly disagree with elevation1043 in terms of the songwriting and this is why. I think that it's a fallacy that professional songwriters write 'better' songs than part timers, failures and hobbyists. Aside from the fact that something like that comes purely down to personal preference, I've heard tons of songs by hobbyists that are better to me than many pro songs.
It's a bit like someone who is into DIY around the house put up against a painter and decorator who does it every day. The pro will do things quicker as they are second nature but the DIY~er can still put together beautiful work and much of the time, you wouldn't know the difference. A good song is not the preserve of someone who is paid to write songs or who does it every day.
We also assume that all engineers are top of the range, all producers kings of the castle, all masterers infallible and unquestionable, all studios magnificent........they're not. As in any profession, you have degrees. Some are superlative. Some great. Some very good. Some good. Some average. Some below it. If I had £10 for every artist I've read over the last 35 years who feels that an engineer/producer screwed up their song, I wouldn't be a rich man. But I certainly wouldn't be a poor one.
I know that things have changed mightilly over the years but always uppermost in my mind is that the music that I grew up with and the stuff I've discovered over the years have actually had a wide variety of recording and production ethics, ranging from super clean to ragged with lots in between. Different genres have differing standards but the key for me is that regardless, I still love the music. Whether the tracks are hissy or dirty or pristine. They went out on records/CDs, whatever, so that makes them commercial.
That is not to denigrate commercial recordings and those that make them, not at all, just to point out that in the very width of the standards, there's hope for many of us yet !