legionserial
New member
Not least if you count the engineer as part of the setup.
The the quality of the ship is irrelevant if you don't have a good captain.
Not least if you count the engineer as part of the setup.
The the quality of the ship is irrelevant if you don't have a good captain.
DavidK
New member
HR member Rami has covered several Beatles tunes and posted them in the mp3 clinic. Here's a link to some clips of a few:
http://www.ramirami.com/?mpf=frame&
AFAIK he's using home recording stuff. It's probably a little higher on the food chain than your M-audio/MXL crowd, but I don't think he's using SSL stuff in a "studio" built for recording. It's home recording on home recording gear.
To me, the sound quality is better than the Beatles stuff. He's a talented guy for sure. Here's a link to the Beatle's Glass Onion on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4IXpebAlUo
Yes, I do understand that youtube has varying degrees of audio quality. Maybe someone has a better link to the same song on mp3? Nonetheless, the sound quality is better IMO than the original (I have it somewhere on CD). I know there are lots of variables, particularly in panning drums and bass, but people can listen and make up their own minds.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'm gonna take shit for this (again), but I really think people need to pull their heads out of the sand and stop putting the Beatles up on a false pedestal. I've heard a ton of stuff that sounds technically better than the Beatles stuff. Now maybe the new '09 remasters this year may give different results, I haven't heard them yet, but frankly - for the most part - I never considered either the Beatles music or the recordings to anything more than plain ol' good.
Either way, though, it doesn't change the fact that if one wants to try to re-create today a similar class of gear to what was being used at places like Abbey Road, they wind up having to spend thousands more than what your average home reccr rig costs.
But mostly the point I was trying to make was that one should not mistake capability and capacity for quality. Most of these bells and whistles that technology *has* made affordable are no substitute for a simple RCA 44 into a classic EMI.
G.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'm gonna take shit for this (again), but I really think people need to pull their heads out of the sand and stop putting the Beatles up on a false pedestal. I've heard a ton of stuff that sounds technically better than the Beatles stuff. Now maybe the new '09 remasters this year may give different results, I haven't heard them yet, but frankly - for the most part - I never considered either the Beatles music or the recordings to anything more than plain ol' good.
Either way, though, it doesn't change the fact that if one wants to try to re-create today a similar class of gear to what was being used at places like Abbey Road, they wind up having to spend thousands more than what your average home reccr rig costs.
But mostly the point I was trying to make was that one should not mistake capability and capacity for quality. Most of these bells and whistles that technology *has* made affordable are no substitute for a simple RCA 44 into a classic EMI.
Here is a fascinating book. I haven't read all of it yet, and I don't know if I'll agree with all of it when I'm done, but it's great at examining the conventional wisdom and not being afraid to call it to the woodshed when need be.
G.
Seafroggys
Well-known member
I'm hopeful for these 2009 remasters. I just downloaded virgin vinyl rips of all their albums from these early 80's vinyls done by Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. Slightly more dynamic than the 1987 CD masters, a lot more warmth, especially on the mono mixes.
I hope the 2009 CD remasters will blow even those out of the water, but alas we'll probably be subjected to more loudness wars shit.
I hope the 2009 CD remasters will blow even those out of the water, but alas we'll probably be subjected to more loudness wars shit.
DavidK
New member
There's a certain amount of semantics involved in that. I would phrase it this way:
Can one achieve Beatles-level fidelity with home gear? Yes.
.
I dont think there is an average. If the average is a cracked copy of Fruity Loops and an mxl mic, then sure. But a decent setup with a DAW, some good effects, a Tascam/M-audio interface, some good inexpensive mics etc will do it.
It also has a lot to do with instrumentation. If one is using softsynths, the job is pretty easy.
Seafroggys
Well-known member
Fairchild Limiters and U47's are the key. And having a great custom built mixing board.
And having the talent obviously.
And having the talent obviously.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'll agree with that, sure. But the original contention was pretty much that home studio-grade gear of the 00s is of higher sonic quality than the studio gear of the 60s, and I can't agree with that.
You really believe, Dave, that an MXL through a Firepod - which is about as "average" as I've seen in five years on this board - can even compare in sonic quality or even quality of construction to a Neumann/RCA/Schoeps/etc. through an EMI/Neve/etc.? I wouldn't mistake the pres on a 122L or an mBox to the pres on a UA anytime soon.
Well yeah, you're taking virtually the entire recording chain - where the majority of the difference exists - out of the equation then. Or more accurately, if using samples, the recording chain *IS* Abbey-Road-class gear or better, because you're leaving the recording up to the pros.
G.
DavidK
New member
Thats not what I said. What I said (or at least meant
) was home gear of the 2000s will get you a sound comparable if not much better than the sound of pop recordings of the 60s.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
With a comparable quality of engineer behind the desks, sure, I'll more or less agree with the comparable part. But that's probably as much because of the production decisions and release media made in the 60s as it is the quality of gear in the 00s.Thats not what I said. What I said (or at least meant
G.
T
Terry Wetzel
New member
Hey folks! the secret word here is TALENT! you either have it or you don't. (not that I do but I'm realistic). I don't mean that all the people who made all those hit records we're talented either. It's a commercial business and promotion has as much to do with it, and sometimes more than talent. The average record or CD buyer doesn't listen anyway! Good music requires that the artist be talented. Likewise the egineer and producer are integral to the hit making process. Then, if the record company pony's up the bucks for tours and promotion, you have a hit record. Not every guitar player can be Mark Knopfler nor can every producer be George Martin. If you think otherwise, your wasting your time!
DavidK
New member
Talent is 99% hard work.
T
Terry Wetzel
New member
Talent is God given! You are born with it! If not, it matters not how hard you work! I once had a discussion with a guy who believed that great atheletes were talented. Athletic ability can be developed by vigorous training. Likewise artistic and musical ability can be developed by practicing. But, to achieve the level of a Michael Angelo or Bethoven, If you ain't got it, you won't get it. No way, No how!
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
In an earlier post you noted that "either you have it or you don't".
I expect it is not quite as extreme as that. I too am of the school that believes you are born with latent abilities that puts you at an advantage over those who don't have as much (though they may have abilities elsewhere). This is a variant of the nurture versus nature debate that has been going on for decades (and is unlikely to be resolved here).
But . . . I don't believe it's like an on-off switch. There are some people that sing like a swamp, and will find it difficult to get out of the bog. At the other extreme there are others who sing like angels. Between those two opposites, though, is just about everybody else, in varying degrees, from pretty hopeless to pretty good, with most being about average. That's the way nearly every measurable characteristic of the population works.
The extremely gifted (in whatever field) are in fact a rarity. For example, Tiger Woods is quite exceptional, and stands out (though not so much these days) amongst the field of professional golfers, who are all of comparable standing.
All of them, Tiger included, will have undertaken vigoruous and extensive training to get where they are. . . and for most of them, where they were before is somewhere in the middle of the big normal distribution curve. Of course, there are many others in that big curve who are also doing extensive training, but not making much headway . . . but they still probably play a reasonable game of golf.
In the end, what I am saying is that pretty much all of us could achieve reasonable results in a particular craft . . . if we set our minds to it and did the necessary work. We may not be the best in the field . . . but that doesn't matter . . . there are some inspired geniuses out there who tend to command the headlines, but most practitioners in a field are not inspired geniuses . . . they're just kind of normal people.
[EDIT] One other point I should add is that, in my view, talent is a genetic, rather than a divine, gift.
DavidK
New member
B
Bob's Mods
New member
Its actually more than just gear. The recording room and band set up in the room has a lot to do with the quality of the recording as well. Go to the Abbey Road web site and look at Studio 2 where the Beatles did most of their recording. Look at some of the photos of the way bands were set up in that fantastic room. Its a great web site. Abbey Road Studios is one of the best in the world.
http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/studios/studio2/
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'm glad the answer is so clear cut, so all those anthropologists, psychologists, art critics, behavioral scientists, physicians, theologists and bar room drunks can stop wasting their time studying and debating this subject the way they have been for the past thousands of years
.I think there's a difference between skill, inspiration, talent and genius, though they do overlap. Genius is perhaps more innate of a trait that cannot be learned - but it can be developed or stunted. Skill can be both learned and developed; whereas some may be born with a natural inclination towards a particular skill, perhaps, that is not a necessary prerequisite. Talent is the product of one's combination of skill level and genius.
There are some folks who are "natural" audio engineers because they have a good balance of both strong left and right brain skills - they can think both artistically and analytically about the same subject, which is a necessity for good audio engineering. But there are also those with those skills who just don't have "the ear", and will never be anything more than technically adequate engineers.
Is that "ear" innate or learned? There's no one answer to that. Yes, I believe there are those that were born with "the ear", but at the same time, those I know that have "the ear" far more often than not grew up with music from infancy in one way or another because their parents were musicians or performers or lovers of music who exposed their young child to it regularly and often as they grew up. It's a combination of nature and nurture that made them what they are.
I will say that if one doesn't have a deep and intrinsic love for music in their blood, and a real desire to create it for reasons that have nothing to do with dreaming about becoming the next rock or hip hop star to get a contract and a green room BJ, then don't waste your and everyone else's time. Take up something else. The more driven one is to get their stuff up on meSpace ASAP, the less likely they probably deserve to be up there.
G.
lifelyrics
Training wheels on
Er, Um, so many of you are so knowledgeable...
But, here's the thing for me. I was asked to do a couple of songs for a memorial service (my friend was dying of cancer). We had a few weeks to pull things together, because it was obvious he didn't have long in this world.
My friend, who sang the leads, wanted reverb, instead of the natural recordings I had always done in the past, and, well, we had to pull a lot of things together on the fly to accommodate. We finished the recordings (I played the instruments - 2-3 tracks, and sang harmony, while she sang lead and the 3rd part harmony), but I was not pleased when I was mixing everything in audacity. We used dynamic mics, and it was overloading my DP004 with the mixer in the middle, so I had to amplify all the vocals = shhhh in the background. I took it out before the vocals started, but I can hear it so plainly right before the vocals start...
ANYWAY, that set me on the journey of signing up, here, at this forum, and lots of trips to local music stores with LOTS of questions. I wanted to learn how NOT to do that again! Even though everyone at the memorial service was very pleased with the recorded songs, I was not.
I have NO aspirations of being professional, or even semi-professional, but I want something I can feel good about. I have written 30+ songs (since 2000), and would like to lay them down in an honorable fashion for my family, & maybe some of my friends to have. I want to be able to put together a better product for the next time I am asked to produce a song or two for a wedding or funeral. GET IT? It's not about the biggest, most expensive, or the BEST for me, it's about something that I can be somewhat proud of.
I am grateful to the pros, and experienced folk who take the time to respond, and help the true "home recording" people, like me.
Thanks, guys. I read a LOT of stuff here that is VERY helpful, and is guiding me on my way to making better recordings.
Sincerely, Rechelle
But, here's the thing for me. I was asked to do a couple of songs for a memorial service (my friend was dying of cancer). We had a few weeks to pull things together, because it was obvious he didn't have long in this world.
My friend, who sang the leads, wanted reverb, instead of the natural recordings I had always done in the past, and, well, we had to pull a lot of things together on the fly to accommodate. We finished the recordings (I played the instruments - 2-3 tracks, and sang harmony, while she sang lead and the 3rd part harmony), but I was not pleased when I was mixing everything in audacity. We used dynamic mics, and it was overloading my DP004 with the mixer in the middle, so I had to amplify all the vocals = shhhh in the background. I took it out before the vocals started, but I can hear it so plainly right before the vocals start...
ANYWAY, that set me on the journey of signing up, here, at this forum, and lots of trips to local music stores with LOTS of questions. I wanted to learn how NOT to do that again! Even though everyone at the memorial service was very pleased with the recorded songs, I was not.
I have NO aspirations of being professional, or even semi-professional, but I want something I can feel good about. I have written 30+ songs (since 2000), and would like to lay them down in an honorable fashion for my family, & maybe some of my friends to have. I want to be able to put together a better product for the next time I am asked to produce a song or two for a wedding or funeral. GET IT? It's not about the biggest, most expensive, or the BEST for me, it's about something that I can be somewhat proud of.
I am grateful to the pros, and experienced folk who take the time to respond, and help the true "home recording" people, like me.
Thanks, guys. I read a LOT of stuff here that is VERY helpful, and is guiding me on my way to making better recordings.
Sincerely, Rechelle
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
You've made an important point that's worth dwelling on.
As you wander the byways of this forum you will discover many technophiles who go to extraordinary lengths to get the sound they're seeking, such as modifying their microphones, customising their preamps, using particular valves . . . and so on. You will read people advising that "you can't do a proper mix with headphones" or that a Rode is no match for a Neumann, or that "room treatment" is critical. These bits of advice are all true . . . but how relevant are they?
I believe there is plenty of room for the middle ground . . . for people who have moderate aspirations for their recording endeavours and are not seeking to emulate George Martin. And this middle ground is a vast playground in which you can get reasonable results.
An important concept is 'fitness for purpose'. There are many reasons for recording: to make money, to establish a reputation as a recording engineer, to catalogue one's material (like a photo album), to experiment with sound, to have fun . . .
All these are valid reasons for recording, and each has a level of quality associated with that purpose. There's is no need to go to the lengths of recording in London, mixing in LA and mastering in Sydney for a three minute track to be played at a wedding for your friends. In fact, you rfriends would probably be quite happy with something you recorded live onto a cassette. It's fit for the purpose.
However, the recording process is inherently educational, and we learn in increments. I note, for example, that you have recognised there was an aspect of your recording that you were not happy with, and that you are now trying to fix it. That's the way it works . . . we do something, and after a while we learn to recognise its failings. ANd with luck, we discover how to deal with it. In this step-by-step process we gradually improve our craft.
So, there are many people, say, who mix with headphones. Is it a big deal? Not really. In time they will recognise the inherent problems in doing that, then move on to the next step of their development. And so it is, I believe, with all aspects of recording.
Incidentally you refer to dynamic mikes and overloading the DP004. I expect this is not a problem with the mikes, but more a problem with gain structure. 'Gain structure' may not mean much to you now (forgive me if I'm wrong, I really have no knowledge of your technical prowess and I could be wrong), but it's worth making this topic one of your next steps.
H
hiphop24360
New member
Ya gotta pay your dues in life. You start with crap and go up the ladder. You have to actually LEARN how to use this stuff, and learning on prosumer stuff is where it's at.
I cant "outmix" my gear at this point. I am not better then it. I am getting pretty darn close though, I am starting to get results that are high quality, with Sonar and M-audio, Yamaha mixers, etc. Five years ago I couldnt do squat recordingwise. For the past two years I have been putting in 1000s of hours of doing this.
I am improving, that's all I can hope for. If I am able to get better and better recordings, it only proves that its not the gear, not at this point. I am certain that someone who really knows their stuff can come to my studio and make me look like an idiot recordingwise.
When I used to teach violin, I would have the student's parents come to me and say "Does he/she need a new violin"? I would always say no. Why would someone who cant play the one they have need a new one? Parents assumed it was a quick fix and their ubertalented kid would sound great on a fancy expensive one. Nope, they would sound crappy on that one too.
^My sentiments exactly. No I dont think Im gunna be making 'commercial level music' with my prosumer rig, but thats more on me than the equipment. I figure I can keep playing with what I have untill I can get some good mixes.
Ive heard some damn good mixes using less than what I have, I know its possible and I know I'm not looking into buying new equipment untill I can achieve the best sound possible from what I have.
A prosumer rig was just the next natural step in improving skill and learning what making music is all about. You don't buy a football helmet at walmart and show up to Cowboys training camp. If your looking for easy answers look elsewhere, Time Effort and Talent. equipment is a distant third. Hell im new and I can see that, I listen to mixes, the ones that sound good...the guys have been recording for like ten years. Ha makes it discouraging starting out, but I got nothing but time baby.