JPXTom
New member
So you're saying it's crap ... but "very very good" crap?
.
Hah im sorry about that, i kinda type without thinking..with the very very good quality i meant that to refer to the demo version..sorry.
Hah im sorry about that, i kinda type without thinking..with the very very good quality i meant that to refer to the demo version..sorry.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
But if you've got all that going for you, why waste it on inferior gear? The gear is *just as* important as every other element. Chances are, if corners are being cut with the gear, corners are being cut everywhere else as well. Because it's a mind-set as much as anything else.
Whether it is crucial or not depends on the goals of the production and the recording artists. For some, top-flight gear is indeed crucial, a necessity.
As far as recording in a less than perfect situation, it is a good skill to be able to handle that, but a better skill to avoid it entirely. Since the original poster in this thread has control of their destiny to a fairly high degree, why deliberately choose a compromised approach? Why not look for and hire the best studio and the best engineer available? What's the value in going home studio if you don't have to?
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think it will be great for them as a band and as individuals to spend some time hitting the streets to check out studios and engineers, and then figure out how to record in a studio under a deadline so that they get the pro sound *and* the feel they want.
Ultimately, that should produce FAR superior results to either of the demos that have been floated so far.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
P.S. Travis, thanks for the REP.
I agree that there is no point in spending the money if the engineer doesn't "get" the band, or the studio doesn't have the right sound. I'm just not sure that the original poster has exhausted all his options in that regard. He seems to think the choice is "home studio versus pro studio", when in fact at this point it should be "pro studio versus pro studio".
Then, if after an in depth search of studios turns up nothing, the choice of going home studio and picking up some gear makes more sense. I don't know what the budget they have to work with is, but it takes a lot of gear to do a full on recording and mix of a band. To do it even close to right, is what I mean.
The other option, which is the one I chose for myself years ago, is to track in a commercial facility and mix at my home studio, hiring an engineer to do that. I personally feel this is the best of both worlds.
I agree that there is no point in spending the money if the engineer doesn't "get" the band, or the studio doesn't have the right sound. I'm just not sure that the original poster has exhausted all his options in that regard. He seems to think the choice is "home studio versus pro studio", when in fact at this point it should be "pro studio versus pro studio".
Then, if after an in depth search of studios turns up nothing, the choice of going home studio and picking up some gear makes more sense. I don't know what the budget they have to work with is, but it takes a lot of gear to do a full on recording and mix of a band. To do it even close to right, is what I mean.
The other option, which is the one I chose for myself years ago, is to track in a commercial facility and mix at my home studio, hiring an engineer to do that. I personally feel this is the best of both worlds.
T
travelin travis
New member
sonicalbert, i repped you because you hit on something i think is important: finding the right guy for the job. the sound quality could be "pro" but still suck if the engineer doesn't get what the band is doing. if you can't find someone that gets it and can capture that, you might as well do it yourself because you get it more than anyone else. what's more important? the sound quality or the feel? i know which one i'd pick.
B
bloomboy
New member
Before I begin, I should note that I'm by no means a professional recordist, and have years less of experience than most of the people here.
I'm really at odds with some of the attitudes expressed here. I'm not going to quote or mention anything anyone has said specifically, because I am (really!) not looking for trouble, but I think the idea that to get really good sound you have to go into a pro studio is completely absurd. It's true that if you want your production to sound exactly like the pop music produced in professional studios, that's what you'll have to do, but that's not even the point of most home recordings. Too often we home recordists try to emulate what we hear in big budget productions rather than just listening for what sounds good. A shure 57 going through a decent preamp (say an FMR RNP) on an instrument can sound just as "good" as a multi-thousand dollar mic running through a multi-thousand dollar preamp- it will sound different, and if you try to make it sound like the thousand dollar mic you're sure to be dissapointed, but if you just move it around until it makes a sound that's unique and interesting... who can judge that? maybe it sounds good with the mic up the chimney across the house, or with the signal running through your answering machine... why not?
The one area where a professional studio is going to be incontrovertibly better is exact reproduction... so I guess if you were doing a live jazz or classical recording, or something where it needs to sound exactly how it sounds, that's pretty hard to do in a home studio. But it seems like you're definitely going for a sound other than that of your actual live instruments, so why not experiment and just get it mastered by someone who really knows what they're doing? (not that I'm the first one to suggest that in this thread, but...)
Regards,
Theo
I'm really at odds with some of the attitudes expressed here. I'm not going to quote or mention anything anyone has said specifically, because I am (really!) not looking for trouble, but I think the idea that to get really good sound you have to go into a pro studio is completely absurd. It's true that if you want your production to sound exactly like the pop music produced in professional studios, that's what you'll have to do, but that's not even the point of most home recordings. Too often we home recordists try to emulate what we hear in big budget productions rather than just listening for what sounds good. A shure 57 going through a decent preamp (say an FMR RNP) on an instrument can sound just as "good" as a multi-thousand dollar mic running through a multi-thousand dollar preamp- it will sound different, and if you try to make it sound like the thousand dollar mic you're sure to be dissapointed, but if you just move it around until it makes a sound that's unique and interesting... who can judge that? maybe it sounds good with the mic up the chimney across the house, or with the signal running through your answering machine... why not?
The one area where a professional studio is going to be incontrovertibly better is exact reproduction... so I guess if you were doing a live jazz or classical recording, or something where it needs to sound exactly how it sounds, that's pretty hard to do in a home studio. But it seems like you're definitely going for a sound other than that of your actual live instruments, so why not experiment and just get it mastered by someone who really knows what they're doing? (not that I'm the first one to suggest that in this thread, but...)
Regards,
Theo
NL5
Unpossible!
While I'm not here to argue that top notch gear is essential, this statement really makes no sense. Please explain this a bit.
edit - I just want to add that I think a lot of people here are equating pro studio to pro gear. While good gear is helpful, the BEST reason to go to a pro is to bring out a better performance, and create a better production. You didn't learn to play guitar overnight, or how to write a great tune overnight, but everyone seems to think they can make a major label recording. Why do you think labels pay so much to the top mixers. Do you think that you are a better band than say Tool? Why did Joe Baresi come in and get paid big bucks? Because he makes them better. Like I said, if you are just looking for a decent recording to sell at gigs, and/or to get more gigs, home recording is great. If you are trying to get signed, and I mean seriously trying to get signed, wouldn't you want the BEST product to send to an A&R guy. You all need to listen to the samples again. The production work in the studio version is way beyond what the OP did - and his recordings are pretty good. If he can find someone to bring out the performance of the demo, or better yet, a BETTER performance, he will have a far superior product than any of the examples.
Last edited:
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
The reason to track at a pro studio is the room itself, the mics, the board, the expertise of the engineer. Very, very few home studios can compete with a what a well designed room has to offer. Those home studios that can are most likely professionally designed, and are basically commercial rooms in a home.
It's the room that is the first most important reason to record in a commercial studio--the professionally designed room is going to blow away pretty much anything a home studio has to offer. And you can certainly hear the room on a recording.
You can usually bring your own engineer to work in whatever room you choose, you aren't stuck with whoever they have on staff. Once you've found an engineer you can work with, then you can take him to whatever studio and then have him mix it at his place or yours, the studio, or a different studio.
So I don't necessarily agree with the all or nothing approach, home studio versus pro studio. Mix it up, figure out a way to get the best of both worlds.
It's the room that is the first most important reason to record in a commercial studio--the professionally designed room is going to blow away pretty much anything a home studio has to offer. And you can certainly hear the room on a recording.
You can usually bring your own engineer to work in whatever room you choose, you aren't stuck with whoever they have on staff. Once you've found an engineer you can work with, then you can take him to whatever studio and then have him mix it at his place or yours, the studio, or a different studio.
So I don't necessarily agree with the all or nothing approach, home studio versus pro studio. Mix it up, figure out a way to get the best of both worlds.
TerraMortim
New member
First off... love the quote under your name hahaha... herb albert is hillarious and to are his tijiuana brass.
I'd just have to dissagree a little bit on a couple points and agree on others. I mean, I get what your saying, totally. And really, pro gear is all that much easier to make it sound awesome. I prefer working on top gear as it is so much less work to get a good result.
Very good point that it depends on the project. I hadn't thought of that exactly. I suppose that most top 40 type music would require the best of the best to get it's sound.
If you have a choice, go for the best you can get. I guess I was just more on about using your limitations to your advantage. There is always this attitude in audio these days that the only way to make good audio is to spend through the teeth. Often with digital stuff, it doesn't cost that much to get a reall good result. . . Often if a really awesome mic is needed it can be rented (I always rent a cad vx2 for one of the projects I do.. I like it)
I would totally have to dissagree that the gear is as important. There are some AMAZING records done on gear that even I would be thinking..what the hell? Really, magic will sound like magic regardless of what it's recorded on, as long as there is a minimum level...obviously if you pick out the cheapest berhinger mixer and recording to old cassette tapes you found in your garage it'll sound like shit, but even some more entry level gear can put out a good result if you know how to manipulate it. I often just use the preamps built into my MOTU 896HD to record in and I like the result (they actually sound pretty cool..for ones that are built in to a $1,000 interface)
But yeah, of course..if you ahve the money or means to get the best of the best, why not... but it's not required to make great music, or even great sounding records... just a bit easier to get to.
The moral of the story.. it's all about your ears not your wallet.. Make good music and don't use the lack of equipment as an excuse... There's always a way to get around your limitations if you are crafty or inventive enough... sometimes the creative result from those limitations can even give you new ideas that you never thought of.
TerraMortim
New member
What I mean is that it doesn't cost all that much to scupt a really great sounding mix out of a DAW... but I can understand where it is a little bit more important with analog gear because you are at mercy of the circutry and the quality of the components (not to say that you can't make it sound good.)
I don't believe in comparing my art to other worthy acts. Tool is a particular artistic expression, and so is mine. I am no better than they, and vise versa. If I were in a Tool tribute band, then maybe I could compare, however it's silly to base someone's artistic merit on their level of media attention. Tool are a great band tho!
Why would you even want to get signed anymore? My recordings are often confused for recordings with a budget behind them. hahaha. I did them in my spare bedroom, usually only going into a "real" studio for the drum room. I could go into as many studios as I wished, but I really do enjoy the process of making music in a non-sterile environment, where I can be comfortable, and not be racing against the clock, to allow myself to experiment.
The industry is changing in big waves. The arguement that you bring forth would have been absolutely spot on a few years ago, but the power that is available these days in a home studio DAW could definately match what some major label artists are putting out...hell...even some major label artists are having their stuff mixed completely in the box. Pro tools won't make it sound any better than say Logic, or Cubase, or Ableton or whatever... it's all just in what UI you are comfortible using.
I always apreciate a really great room...and it's always a joy to work on really awesome gear.. but it's in no way required to make something sound great, or even if it's your goal to get signed by a record corporation. It's all about the level of skill involved.
TerraMortim
New member
yeah...The best arguement for a pro studio... lots of mics to experiment with and well designed rooms. That's the one thing that I hold on to with real studios..the drum room. *slobber*
You have the right idea tho. Just do whatever the project needs. Mix it up if you need.
Glad to see people returning back to something rational on this bbs haha. I was begining to wonder.
B
bloomboy
New member
I agree with what's been said about the room... and lucky for me, I just happen to have a room in my house that's large, has a wooden floor, a high, slanted cieling, and no significant parallell surfaces. But it's equally important to know your room, to spend time listening to different instruments and moving around in it. I'll admit it's damn near impossible to record an instrument that needs a lot of space, like a traditional drum set, in a room with wildly varying bumps in different places. Sometimes, though, it can be a real asset. For instance, there's a specific spot in a room in my house that I often use to record accoustic guitar, becuase I know that the bass will be accentuated there in a very smooth and pleasing way. It allows me to record an accoustic guitar tone that has smooth and rich bass without the boominess associated with close miking, and would probably be very difficult to re-create, even in a great commercial studio space.
Peace,
Theo
Peace,
Theo
NL5
Unpossible!
I didn't mean for the part in the edit to be directed specifically at you. Also, I was not trying to compare your band to Tool. The point I was trying to make is that even great bands with a great sound and great tunes still benefits IMMENSELY from having a pro producer/mix engineer.
As far as the model changing, I totally agree. I do feel though that getting "signed" is still the best way to go for most bands, although that is changing rapidly. I only know of a couple bands that have sold 100k+ albums without being signed, and none that have made it to gold or platinum level. The OP's recordings are fantastic for home recording, but they do not sound pro to me at all. Which reminds me that the other half of the "model changing" is from the listeners end. I think very few people any more appreciate great audio. They listen on an iPod with crap headphones, or their bose stereo, or whatever, and really don't hear a difference. Although I still feel their is a significant difference even on an ipod. Music has become a background activity, whicjh is really sad......
Lastly, everyone keeps coming back to the gear or maybe even the room. Both of which help, but the biggest difference in making a song stand out is going to be the producer and/or the mix engineer. This of course assumes everything else is equal - same band, same song, etc. I don't understand why people think they can play on the same level as the pro's - regardless of gear. George Massenburg could make a great recording with all behringer gear. 99.9% of home recordists could be put in the greatest studio in the world and would fail to match Georges quality.
Read my posts, I am not saying home recording can't get great results - hell, I am a home recordist. It just depends on what your after, and how seriously you take your dream......
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
But obviously George Massenburg does not use Behringer gear. The quality of audio gear is so important to him that he designs his own to meet his high standards. So while he could probably make a good sounding recording with sub par equipment, he doesn't.
I just think that whole argument is threadbare. So what if someone like a Massenburg or a Sweiden could make a great recording with lesser gear? If you look at how they *actually work*, they use the best available. That is more telling than postulating some hypothetical scenario where they use crap gear.
This whole thing about making great recordings with prosumer gear is just cold comfort for people that don't want to or can't spend bucks on pricier equipment, and feel defensive about that. I just don't feel there's any need for anyone to feel defensive at all, but still it's important to be a realist.
That's why I've been so adamant with the original poster that he should not sell himself short and use the money that is being put up to hire himself a great room and engineer to track the album. Then at that point decide where to mix it. Often, engineers themselves have decent mixing rooms. A mixing room is easier to find/setup than a recording room.
I'm not a home record-ist, I'm a home mix-ist.
I just think that whole argument is threadbare. So what if someone like a Massenburg or a Sweiden could make a great recording with lesser gear? If you look at how they *actually work*, they use the best available. That is more telling than postulating some hypothetical scenario where they use crap gear.
This whole thing about making great recordings with prosumer gear is just cold comfort for people that don't want to or can't spend bucks on pricier equipment, and feel defensive about that. I just don't feel there's any need for anyone to feel defensive at all, but still it's important to be a realist.
That's why I've been so adamant with the original poster that he should not sell himself short and use the money that is being put up to hire himself a great room and engineer to track the album. Then at that point decide where to mix it. Often, engineers themselves have decent mixing rooms. A mixing room is easier to find/setup than a recording room.
I'm not a home record-ist, I'm a home mix-ist.
NL5
Unpossible!
I agree with you. I have officially decided I suck at getting my point across on the internet. Pro gear is important, pro rooms are important, pro engineers, producers, and mix engineers are important. I was just making the point that is not JUST the gear. If you don't know how to use it, it will only make clearer your inability.....
I also have said several times the song is king. As well, the performance. I am assuming that a great producer will make both better. If they are not, then they need to be replaced. They should also bring a much higher level of production when it comes time to mix. I have yet to hear home recordings that actually sound pro. They just don't. Is it necessary to sound pro? that is up to the individual. Most times it's not needed actually. But the OP is looking for what would yield the BEST results, not "good enough" results.
CoolCat
Well-known member
this is interesting, and very revealing to me anyway. I can think of my group of recording friends and its true...the HR DIY thing, but yet usually just because we're a good acoustic player doesn't mean we're a good bass player and electric lead and keyboardist....and a mixing engineer and a mastering engineer.
very good point.
another thing, I've witnessed is the Engineer expertise..like Sonic mentioned "the pro versus pro" aspect.
If he's an excellent Country Music Producer with the Midas touch, doesn't mean he can do a RAP CD mix and vice versus. It seems obvious to do this homework when picking out a studio or engineer-for-hire, but many overlook it.
So speaking to the poster, How much time and energy was put into your last venture you mentioned, in the PRO STUDIO that made a ASS sounding CD?
lessons learned from your first "pro studio" waste of money experience?
TerraMortim
New member
Ah.. I must have missed that part. That's kind of what I meant. The person behind the board is going to make the difference. If he/she is a master at what they do they can take a simple DAW and turn out world class results. I thought you were saying that the gear is what makes a recording or song great just as much as everything else. It's a factor, but I think it's below most of the other listed factors in order of importance.
You're a bit correct about the iPods, but you have to remember that this obsession with pristine audio was a bit of a new thing as well.. in the past records were recorded with lots of tape distortion/saturation, and other colourants to the sound. Good audio is whatever works for the song, just how I would definately say that a low-fi punk album is good audio because it is perfect for the music (hi-fi would destroy it). I don't remember what the OPs music sounded like, but I know it's very possible to replicate pro recordings with the right ear, and enough inginuity.
Good discussion though.
TerraMortim
New member
Yeah..the thing is though... obviously with the lowest of the low berhinger outboard gear and mixers you can't do much with it.. I was mostly talking about relatively decently priced gear such as my Focusrite preamp or using plug-in compressors vs. an avalon or manley. Use the best gear you can, but also learn to work within your limitations to get the same result. With analog gear it's a little bit different, as it's more dependant on the componants, and cheap electronics can cause lots of noise, etc... I'm really on about that there is this mindset that's out there, and to be honest I've been guilty of it as someone who gets a woody from music and audio gear lol, that if I only had this top of the range compressor, or the best mixer on the market.. it'll make me sound awesome. ALways use the best that you can... because why not? The thing is, those folks you mentioned, most likely use gear of that calibre because it makes their job easier. It's much easier to mix, and record with the best gear... much quicker, and less tweaking is needed. I'm sure if they sit down at a DAW, they could do just as well, just with a bit more time and cleverness involved.
With computers these days, you could very easily get a pro result by properly treating your room, a good pair of speakers (That IS something that really matters to have high quality.), some sort of interface and good recording software. My copy of Logic Pro could easily be used even without any 3rd party plugins, for a kick ass result (I often use the built in Logic plugs even though I own quite a few commercial 3rd part plugs).
I can appreciate a big studio for what it is...sure it's nice to lay down some stuff to a nice 24 track tape machine...or to run your audio through an SSL or NEVE, and to have a bitchin sounding room. That's still the best argument for actual studios...
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
I have to say, I use plugin compressors and eq, and I also use some really nice outboard compressors and eq too. I recently purchased an Avalon 2044 compressor and a Manley Massive Passive eq, for example. There is no plugin that can do what these two units can: the tone, the glue, the size--call it whatever you will.
Plugins process whatever is there to begin with, but they can't add mojo the way hardware can. It seems almost magical at times, and it's kind of hard to explain. Once you hear it on your own tracks, it's really hard to go back to budget gear or plugins. And I wish it wasn't that way, because it's so darn expensive!
The other thing to consider is that it is a competitive marketplace, and any tracks released will be compared to any other tracks released. Regardless of budget or fame. So if there is someone (like a label or whoever it is in this case) putting up some bread to make a CD, then don't cheap out and go all home recording on them. The album needs to be able to stand up to the rest of the market--I feel the goal is to get it into the 90-95% as good as a major release category. Which is possible on a budget, but is probably not possible if all the recording and mixing is done in a home studio (unless you are talking about a phenomenal rock-star type home studio).
The key is the goals of the album. If it's just to have some fun, maybe pass out copies at weekend gigs, then don't sweat it and record it in the best room you've got at home. But if the goal is a serious release intended for a label or to get signed, for airplay, then you've really got to step it up a bit in every regard. Which includes the quality of the studio, engineer, and gear used in the making of the album.
There's a lot of good points being made in this thread and I'm not knocking anybody's approach, just trying to clarify what I'm saying as best I can.
Plugins process whatever is there to begin with, but they can't add mojo the way hardware can. It seems almost magical at times, and it's kind of hard to explain. Once you hear it on your own tracks, it's really hard to go back to budget gear or plugins. And I wish it wasn't that way, because it's so darn expensive!
The other thing to consider is that it is a competitive marketplace, and any tracks released will be compared to any other tracks released. Regardless of budget or fame. So if there is someone (like a label or whoever it is in this case) putting up some bread to make a CD, then don't cheap out and go all home recording on them. The album needs to be able to stand up to the rest of the market--I feel the goal is to get it into the 90-95% as good as a major release category. Which is possible on a budget, but is probably not possible if all the recording and mixing is done in a home studio (unless you are talking about a phenomenal rock-star type home studio).
The key is the goals of the album. If it's just to have some fun, maybe pass out copies at weekend gigs, then don't sweat it and record it in the best room you've got at home. But if the goal is a serious release intended for a label or to get signed, for airplay, then you've really got to step it up a bit in every regard. Which includes the quality of the studio, engineer, and gear used in the making of the album.
There's a lot of good points being made in this thread and I'm not knocking anybody's approach, just trying to clarify what I'm saying as best I can.
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
Even George Massenburg will screw up from time to time, but it's very damn rare.
When the second "Trio" album came out (Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, and Emmy Lou Harris), somebody pointed out that there was some clipping on one of Linda's vocals. George responded by asking what the poster would have done if they were doing the session.
Linda liked that take - and you don't ask Linda Ronstadt to do another take, trust me on this one. I've known Linda since she was around 17, and she's one of the loudest singers on the planet.
So, the album went out as is - with the clipping in place. And yes, George has some of the best equipment in the world.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Does good gear make a difference?
Of course it does.
Does a quality enginer make a difference?
Of course they do.
Those aren't the way to frame the questions, IMHO. The better questions for finding the key information IMHO are:
If you had to choose between one or the other, gear or engineer, which would make the most difference? I think the answer there is obvious. Harvey could make something worth listening to with a dictaphone. Paris Hilton couldn't make a decent recording if you let her loose at Abbey Road with (your favorite artist's names here) in the live room. Or to put it another way (apologies to Beck for paraphrase stealing from his sig line):
If you can't make a hit recording with a Portastudio, you won't be able to do it with a Studer either.
And the second question is who or what does each one actually help the most? The reason The Big Boys use quality gear is because they know how to make it worthwhile. It's like giving a custom sniper rifle to a sharpshooter. Of course they'll take the custom sniper rifle over an AR-15, because it allows then to take out a bad guy silently from a mile away with a single shot. But will giving that custom rifle to Joe Couchpotato actually make him that mush a better rifleman than the AR-15 will? Perhaps marginally, but he probably still couldn't hit a van with it from even half a mile away with a full clip.
Top shelf gear is made so by the engineer. Top shelf engineers are not made so by the gear.
G.
Of course it does.
Does a quality enginer make a difference?
Of course they do.
Those aren't the way to frame the questions, IMHO. The better questions for finding the key information IMHO are:
If you had to choose between one or the other, gear or engineer, which would make the most difference? I think the answer there is obvious. Harvey could make something worth listening to with a dictaphone. Paris Hilton couldn't make a decent recording if you let her loose at Abbey Road with (your favorite artist's names here) in the live room. Or to put it another way (apologies to Beck for paraphrase stealing from his sig line):
If you can't make a hit recording with a Portastudio, you won't be able to do it with a Studer either.
And the second question is who or what does each one actually help the most? The reason The Big Boys use quality gear is because they know how to make it worthwhile. It's like giving a custom sniper rifle to a sharpshooter. Of course they'll take the custom sniper rifle over an AR-15, because it allows then to take out a bad guy silently from a mile away with a single shot. But will giving that custom rifle to Joe Couchpotato actually make him that mush a better rifleman than the AR-15 will? Perhaps marginally, but he probably still couldn't hit a van with it from even half a mile away with a full clip.
Top shelf gear is made so by the engineer. Top shelf engineers are not made so by the gear.
G.
