How do high-end studios work?

I always prefer the analog tracking, the digital mixing if its a particularly involved project with lots of useless tracks of noises, and analog summing to make the stereo stems to go to mastering.

That's what I always thought, digital mixing is geared more towards songs containing more obscure electronic sounds. Now if you don't mind I'd like to veer off topic a bit, and say that this reminds me of Death Cab For Cutie. Now before you talk down about them if those were you're immediate intentions you should really give their new album Narrow Stairs a good listen. I think it's genius, and what brings this back in topic is that I believe this album was recorded on tape, then mixed digitally, probably to make it easier to deal with all their obscure sounds and noises, not that it takes anything away form the album's instrumental content. Anyone listen to this album or have more info on its recording?
 
Anyone listen to this album or have more info on its recording?

I havent heard the album but I like to consider myself a DCFC listener.

I know I've seen Chris Walla on advertisements for I think RADAR's A/D converters. This doesn't mean they don't use analog but I would assume that there is definitely things going on digitally. We're getting a bit far off of topic. This is how Chris Walla works .. which may be modeled specifically for recording Death cab ... but I dont know. Just dont want to hijack!
 
I know I've seen Chris Walla on advertisements for I think RADAR's A/D converters. This doesn't mean they don't use analog but I would assume that there is definitely things going on digitally.
If I had to choose a single, digital system for tracking, without a doubt, it'd be a RADAR. No question, no compromise, no competition.
 
If I had to choose a single, digital system for tracking, without a doubt, it'd be a RADAR. No question, no compromise, no competition.

Ahmen on that one. I was on a RADAR Nyquist system a few monthe ago and I want one now. Maybe I should sell my 2" deck and my 24Track digital HD recorder and pony up a few more bucks.
 
This is sort of a general question, in that as much information as possible is appreciated. Now I've come to learn how much different home recording is from professional recording. I'm quite sure it's much more than some simple usb interface into a laptop that most home studios use these days. So more out of curiosity than of a problem in need of solving, I've been wondering how the actual audio signals in high-end studios that record bands with major labels are actually recorded. Is it just a huge multitrack recorder? If so how is it mixed if mixing is done with a DAW such as pro tools in a computer? Or is it digital at all? In other words, in a standard professional recording studio, through what piece(s) of equipment does the audio signal travel to be actually recorded? Then, where and how is this recorded audio then transferred to be mixed? Also, how is this final mix sent to tape if this is usually the end result? I appreciate any "input" you have, pun intended. ;)

My personal opinion to this: it just depends. There's really more to a world class studio than just a bunch of gear and some really good engineers.

You have to understand, these days a "high-end studio" can mean many things. Professionally speaking, the term "high-end studio or world class studio" implies a facility that can cater to the largest clientele base possible. In theory, any world class client should be able to step into one of these facilities and have full access to all possible creative outlets to make a great recording.

So think about it, it's not only the studio's in-house setup that you're seeking, but their reputation and connections with outside business that could be beneficial to that creative process. (A/V shops, connected in the local and global industry in a way that gives you the recording you need to compete). Of course, since things are so high tech these days, you're finding very elaborate and sophisticated setups to essentially accomplish a simple task.

In other words, they are doing exactly what you are doing, just on a much larger scale. Even at a small level, you're creating a catalog of music. A tangible recording. That's the philosophy.



To answer your question more directly, the signal chain is essentially the same. Analog recordings on 2 inch tape still float around, but have become more of a request than a viable medium to record (too many artists' that suck too bad to spend the cash on all that tape). So you're going to see digital interfaces and digital gear most of the time. Studios that can afford the expense of holding vintage gear and 100k analog tape machines will do so to attract clients, producers and engineers. So things like analog tape are almost a niche industry now.

I mean, if you're trying to understand that signal chain to apply it in a home studio, then signal flow, which is an entire study in itself, is important.

Genereally speaking, you'll have something like a mic -> mic panel -> patchbay -> which then splits off to the console and other pieces of gear in the studio.

At the console strip, it's really just a glorified Mbox or something like that. At a basic level, it does the same thing. It still has a preamp, phantom power, gain control, possibly some type of high pass filter and maybe a phase switch of some type.

A large format console, of course, has that and a whole lot more at higher quality. For example, you may start seeing hi-pass and lo-pass filters, elaborate EQing, routing and bussing options, pads, etc.

You have to realize, these things are powered by huge power supplies, which plays such a huge role in how smooth and accurate that signal runs through the board.

I mean the list goes on....
 
Last edited:
Leerosario quote

"So you're going to see digital interfaces and digital gear most of the time. Studios that can afford the expense of holding vintage gear and 100k analog tape machines will do so to attract clients, producers and engineers"

You can get a good used Studer 2" 24 track for under 10k these days. I dont think there is much fear in holding old gear for those that have it. Most cannot recover what they spent and it's kind of nice for studios to have the options to clients.
Jim
 
Leerosario quote

"So you're going to see digital interfaces and digital gear most of the time. Studios that can afford the expense of holding vintage gear and 100k analog tape machines will do so to attract clients, producers and engineers"

You can get a good used Studer 2" 24 track for under 10k these days. I dont think there is much fear in holding old gear for those that have it. Most cannot recover what they spent and it's kind of nice for studios to have the options to clients.
Jim

No, 100K is 100 thousand tape machines! That would cost waaaaaay more than 10K!
 
No, 100K is 100 thousand tape machines! That would cost waaaaaay more than 10K!

whoops! typo :D


Actually, I was spouting off memory on that one. It's been a while and I figured the number would be that high. I'm thinking about a conversation I had with one of the studio technicians at my time at Full Sail about the studer 2 inch tape macines they had and he spouted off the 100k price range. But maybe he ment to say including maintenance, decking it out...etc etc.
 
Last edited:
This is pretty interesting. You have a point with modern DAW technology, where people are more concerned with the levels of the countless plugins as opposed to actually listening. And for some projects, I'm sure mixing analog is probably the better option, plus more fun like you said, with real knobs and such.;) But I suppose you'd better have your outboard effects handy.

There are just so many albums today that would be quite challenging, if not impossible to mix with an analog console. Maybe I shouldn't say impossible, but it really must require great skill and though I hate to say it, but great equipment as well. I guess I have to get over the fact that computers don't dominate the audio world regardless of their their countless plugin effects; that analog consoles suit some applications better than computers. Uh oh... I hope I'm not starting an analog versus digital debate again. But I would enjoy hearing what you have to say about this matter.

You know, Mattr's post really had me thinking last night, while I was re-cutting some leads and melody lines for a demo I was working on.

Theres nothing in digital technology AS SUCH that forces you to not trust your ears, but it sure is easier to get hung up on visual cues and mix that way rather than tweaking until it sounds right. Likewise, since you can patch basically anything into anything, it's also a lot easier to get heavyhanded. If you're a home recordist with a single delay unit and a single reverb unit and maybe one or two good compressors, then you have to really pick and choose what needs what, and you can't douse everything in delay, reverb, chorus, flanging, and tremolo until it sounds like a big soupy mess. You're forced to mix more sparingly and conservatively than you otherwise would.

This is potentially an advantage of digital recording, in that the sheer processing power at your fingertips is limitless. However, as the old cliche goes, with great power comes great responsibility. Just because you CAN go nuts with a million different effects doesn't mean it's a good thing.

so, for kicks, last night after I got all the raw tracks done, I decided to try flying blind. I flipped over from the track view I'm more familiar with to Sonar's "console" view, turned off the graphing part of the channel EQ's, and tried to do compression and reverb tweaks with my eyes closed, just focusing on what I was hearing, and not what I was seeing.

It was a very interesting experience. Were the results better? Too early to say, but it's worth noting that I ended up re-recording the bass guitar because I wasn't happy with it, rather than playing with modeled preamps, EQ settings, and more or less compression. I also mixed a lot drier than I normally do - an almost inaudible delay on the verse melody and solo (the chorus was different - the song drops into halftime and the melody becomes very sparse, so I wanted some prominant slow echoes to build a greater feeling of space).

It's something I'll certainly be doing again, I think. Again, I can't swear that the results were better, but for a guy who's entire recording experience has been by looking at waveforms and adding plugins, it was kind of refreshing to be looking down at a bunch of knobs and sliders, and not "seeing" EQ.
 
whoops! typo :D


Actually, I was spouting off memory on that one. It's been a while and I figured the number would be that high. I'm thinking about a conversation I had with one of the studio technicians at my time at Full Sail about the studer 2 inch tape macines they had and he spouted off the 100k price range. But maybe he ment to say including maintenance, decking it out...etc etc.

I could see 100 grand for an orig. studer ,2" 24 track back when that is all they had, but they are all over the place now cheap.Thinking about the whole digital-analog thing. As I said there have been many blind comps. made between the 2. I believe that the console and outboard gear made more of a sonic difference that the recording formats.Yes I know people today that mix in protools or whatever do/can still use outboard gear but I rather think the trend is to go more towards plugins, some only using plugins.
 
Last edited:
The funny part is when people have plugins ported of digital rack gear and people still say the rack one sounds better
 
Nice gear and lots of it.

The bigger differences are the rooms and monitoring chains.

Hmmm... well the last high end studio I was in was Power Station - New England, where my friend Charles Olsen works, and they DO have a great main room with smaller rooms off of it and lots of good gear, and several of just about every mike I've ever admired and a Neve VR, etc. and three decent sets of monitors on the console and some hanging on the ceiling...

BUT ... the sonics where I sit to mix in my room are way better than theirs, because I have the first order reflections controlled way better with my ASC Attack Wall and other treatment. It's not even close. Their space is compromised because of all the gear they need to have in there and the workflow requirements, while mine is optimized for sonics. I can actually hear the sound of the recording space on the recording, not the sound of my mixing space. It doesn't come through as well there. Oh well... controlling reflections is one of those times when less gear is a good thing!

Cheers,

Otto
 
The funny part is when people have plugins ported of digital rack gear and people still say the rack one sounds better
Pipeline, yeah I tend to agree with you but I do love the UAD-1 plugins. And that was kind of related to my point with the analog thing...analog recorders sounding better/warmer than digital. The older analog consoles and outboard gear I think have more to do with 'that" sound than the recording format, ie analog 2" or digital.
 
The UAD-1 plugins are no less digital than any other plugins. What this really means is that you like some algos better than others, as we all do. If you hear analog as better or warmer, you need only to get pretty specific about what sort of distortion it is that you like and tell a coder. It shouldm be doable

See what you think about this one for example http://www.stillwellaudio.com/?page_id=68
 
Back
Top