is expensive gear that important?

[warmth is good]

Just listened to both versions of leaves, and i can see how you liked your version better. I totally agree dude, and I reckon that IS the sound that you're going for...more energy, less empty feeling, better performances...

As has been mentioned, I think the vocals were performed CONSIDERABLY better on your version, which IMO makes a HUGE difference...I just wasn't sold by the vocals on the pro track. The performance and gelling of the other instruments I thought was also better on your own version. I would agree that the track has been over-limited, and I wouldn't normally be one to notice those sorts of things.

Good job all in, in my opinion, and I like the tune too. Go with your own version i'd say!

 

[SonicAlbert]

And now for a completely differing opinion!

i'm not sure what kind of feedback you are looking for, but I listened to the two versions of "leaves" - or atleast to to first 20 seconds or so. Even after adjusting for the different levels, the pro version is WAY better - easy to tell right from the word go.

thomaswomas, I've listened to both versions as well and came to the same conclusion as NL5 did in the quote: the pro studio version is *far* better. I think the issues you might have is that the mix is very different, the instruments are spread differently. It's certainly not what you are used to, you've got your original version in your head and it can be hard to break out of that.

In listening to your other tracks, I can hear some real problems with the drums. You can hear the room, and it doesn't seem to be working. Also, the balances between the various elements of the arrangements are a bit out of whack. What you might view as "too clean" in that studio version is really a pretty well balanced mix.

I agree that the pro mix of "Leaves" could have used a little dirtying up, but overall it is, in my opinion, a better representation of your song than the demo. It's easy to fall into a trap where you just do the demo over again in the full-on version. In the case of "leaves" I think you could probably have taken a few mix ideas from the demo and applied them to the pro studio version. For example, I did like the spread of the chunky guitars in the demo. However, as far as overall tone and professionalism of the sound, I think the pro studio version is better.

That's my opinion anyway.

 

[amra]

OK, I have a new take on this.

The reality of it, is that very few bands/musicians out there are good enough to even justify a "major label" quality recording in a pro studio. You can have top shelf gear, top notch rooms, and a top notch producer. But if the band is not really that good, and or their music sucks, then what? It's like putting lipstick on a pig. In the end, it's still a big nasty smelly pig. (This is a general statement, not a statement aimed at any of the music posted on this thread)

I think for most bands the weakest link is not going to be the recording, but the songs they are recording, and the talent (or lack thereof) of the band members. I mean for real. Some of the bands that come in to record just make you saw "wow..." and not in a good way.


Maybe I am just fooling myself, since I am a "home recorder", but I think a truly talented band that is going somewhere can discovered by putting out a couple low budget, but decent quality recordings, until they get noticed enough to have a record label pay for a top notch recording with the big boys in a big studio.

To me, it just makes no sense, for 90% of the bands out there to spend lots of money putting lipstick on their pig in a top shelf studio...


P.S. I play in a band, but I don't fool myself into thinking we are one of the 10%.

 

[cusebassman]

You should rename your band to "Lipstick on a Pig"

 

[SonicAlbert]

I think a truly talented band that is going somewhere can discovered by putting out a couple low budget, but decent quality recordings, until they get noticed enough to have a record label pay for a top notch recording with the big boys in a big studio.

But these guys do apparently have someone putting up the money for the recording. So they do indeed need to kick it up a few notches from the home studio level. The demo songs that they posted would definitely benefit from recordings with better production values.

If you don't step it up a few notches you'll get stuck where you are. If you sound like a home studio band, then people will think of you that way. If you sound like rock stars, people will think of you that way too.

 

[cavedog101]

Like I mentioned before, the 'studio' version of the 'Leaves' song is much better. Its NOT a keeper in my book, mainly because of the conflict you had mentioned and I believe I can hear that conflict in the preformance of the song. Yes, your version is much more free in its energy and really lends itself more to a LIVE recording than the studio version.


But you're almost there. The songs are good and the presentation is where you need to be oh so careful about now ...if you're looking to be really successful. Its been said already and I only reiterate......shop around for the 'right' person for the job. This will involve sitting down with a pint somewhere and really getting to know the person and to be open to suggestions and the expertise that they will bring to the fray.


The right person will bring as much to the project as your bandmates do as far as playing and writing the material.

 

[Blue Groove]

...

Gear is important. My old bands first recording was good sounding, with gear funded by touring, merch., etc...

We later rerecorded the album with the same producer and engineer, but at a high end Nash studio. The difference was astounding. Less noise (partially because of star point grounding) more headroom, etc...

With that said, the music is the most important factor. The sound of the room is paramount, as well as the quality of your source point (instrument or voice). gear should translate, not add noise. Cheap gear adds alot of noise because of a bad trace design and by using noisy components. You can try to counter it, but it will remain.

I know that some old gear has hiss, some hiss is okay, but when it all makes noise, it adds up.

Try a MXL V69 through a Yamaha board and a dbx comp (a new one)
then try a Telefunken U47 through a Neve 1073 and an Emperical Labs EL-8

assuming you have a set of "decent" speakers in a blind test, the latter will win. Not opinion, fact.

 

[cusebassman]

But the pre's in the lower end Yamahas suck! Gotta get yerself a DMP-3... hehe

Yes, the difference will of course be noticed. I think the original question though is whether it matters. Perhaps not, but there are so many lengthy posts in this thread I don't feel like digging back, so I'm going to give my opinion on the subject I'd like to discuss at the moment!

Some will care, some will not. Depending on what's wrong, or "imperfect" about the hobbyist's recording, it may grate on your nerves, or may very well give the recording a rustic, individual quality.

I know when I hear a recording of a boomy acoustic guitar, I don't want to hear another note. But when I listen to a recording of a folk song from 1922 that was done straight to acetate, the quality of the recording adds to the mystique of the song itself, whether it is crap quality or not.

Now, the quality you get running, let's say, the above-mentioned MXL V67 through a low-end pre into an interface to the PC, which is then mixed and sent out to people, may be decent. When you are in the realm of home-recording, the equipment can give you great results and it can sound like shit with the tweak of a knob.

At the same time, there isn't a defined boundary between what level of equipment is going to make anyone sound at least somewhat decent and what will make that same band sound like shit. Its a combination of the two - a shit band in a pro studio is going to have the greatest sounding piece of garbage recorded and mastered, whereas an amazing band is going to still be somewhat amateur if they record in such a fashion.

Tell ya what though - the quality of the song must matter at least as much the quality of the recording, because I'd be more willing to listen to a great song recorded poorly than a shit song recorded in a million-dollar facility with the top engineers of all time behind the desk.

 

[travelin travis]

But the pre's in the lower end Yamahas suck!

yes they do.

 

[ahuimanu]

thanks for the replies. much appreciated. so you can get an idea,i've uploaded some tracks which are as follows:

What's your band's name? Do you have a website?

I think all of your "demos" convey much more energy than the studio release. All of the possible reasons have been well discussed in prior posts in this thread.

I like what you guys are doing; very much in fact. So, what is rocking YOUR socks off? What is inspiring the best from you and the band? Sure, some guys here will nit-pick and find flaws (that's what you asked for), but I think the overall vibe of your demos is good and gives me a great sense of who you are. So, whatever you are doing, it is allowing you and the band to achieve inspired performance - that's what matters. A pro studio could get you the same results, or better, but the vibe and energy must be there. Plus, the engineer and/or producer have to get on YOUR PAGE. Any pro will want to capture YOUR vibe.

Some great friends and former bandmates had a very promising career cut short from listening too much to others and seeking Los Angeles "sound/spin" doctors to "commercial" them up for a record deal. When left to their own devices, their band was popular on the Las Vegas scene and actually drew a more favorable response than their contemporaries, the Killers. We know the Killers went on to fame and glory, but in the case my friends' band, they were stuck in a dilemma that you seem to be facing. They put too much of their future into other's ears/hands and they collapsed as a result.

Find the "right" person is good advice, but if that person doesn't come around then stick to what you know is giving you the best energy and results. Your demos, despite slight flaws, still convey the power and vision of what you want to be (or at least it does for me when I hear them). Think of it this way: a few blemishes on an otherwise beautiful woman still leaves the net result of a beautiful woman.

I get the feeling that you're pretty pleased with the results you're getting from your "semi-pro" stuff and very disappointed in your "pro studio" experience. I had very similar experiences in the early 90s and would advise you to follow your heart and ears. Demand a level of professionalism and respect from anyone you'll hire or all bets are off. Never let a supposed "pro" blow you off like your first guy did - discuss what you want ahead of time and rely on your gut in terms of the feeling/vibe you get with him/her.

I have a feeling that your band will wind up a statistic if you don't follow your gut/heart. Otherwise, I think you guys sound great and look forward to hearing more.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

A case study

For a current case study on gear vs. engineer:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=243054

G.

 

[xstatic]

I make a living in this industry and this is what I have noticed....

People that can afford better stuff attest to its need. People that can't tend to minimize its importance and often even deny it.

This is the other thing I have noticed...

That people that can afford it are almost always more talented and succesful then the "DIY" types that try and justify the lack of....

In the end, I find that gear is not that important amongst those with less experience or lesser skills. The better an engineer, producer, musician etc... gets, the more the gear begins to factor in as far as importance goes.

Take this however you want

 

[ez_willis]

3) the gates - single release we recorded ourselves and had it mixed professionally
http://www.lightningmp3.com/live/file.php?fid=8097

Cool tune, dude.

Remember The Alarm?

 

[rayc]

Consumers use digital audio now - usually massive loss formats like MP3.

Despite this the people making the music still use the best they can get their hands on OR the gear that matches an aesthetic they are chasing (like Lee Mavers chasing down a specific 60's valve desk & then complaining that it didn't have real 60's dust in it).

Could you imagine recording at a quality level comensurate with domestic portable MP3 players full of downloaded music & the ear buds that go with them (let alone the preset EQ & megabass settings)?

I use the best I can afford & would love to get someone who knows how to use my modest gear to get the best from it. Unfortuately they'd still only produce so so results as my musicianship & songs aren't up to scratch.

Best songs you can get/write:

Most appropriate performance (best?) you can give/get:

Best space to record in you can arrange/make/afford:

Best recording skills you can hire/afford/develop/perform:

Best gear you can afford:

Best mix you can buy/do

&

Best mastering you can get done by best absolute expert you can afford

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

In the end, I find that gear is not that important amongst those with less experience or lesser skills. The better an engineer, producer, musician etc... gets, the more the gear begins to factor in as far as importance goes.

Take this however you want

I think there's several ways that can be interpreted, with probably at least some grain of truth to all of them.

SOUR GRAPES
On the one hand, I agree that there is a bit of a sour grapes factor amongst those that do not have/cannot afford the gear. This is human nature.

GEAR SLUTS
On the other hand, the sad truth is that most (not all) of us were originally attracted to this racket because we actually love the gear first and the music second. I know I'll get a lot of flames for that, but consider these points: We spend all our time on Home Recording, not Harmony Central. The Big Boys hang out at a site that is specifically titled "gearslutz.com." Hell, if I had a buck for every interview I've read with a brand name engineer that contained the statement "I admit that I am a gear slut", I could buy that UA 2192 I've lusted after for a couple of years now. And there are far more people on this board worried about how to get their CDs to sound good then they are how to get themselevs to sound good.

CAUSE AND EFFECT
The most successful people in this business may have the most gear, but let's not mistake the chicken and the egg here. Are they successful because of the amount of gear that they have, or do they have a lot of gear because they are successful?

It's a little of both (gear lists attract clients), but mostly the gear are the rewards for talent and success; far more than talent and success are the rewards for buying gear.

RESULTS
When people tend to have a affectation for a given toy, they tend even more to find reasons justifying that affectation. Amazing how Joe Golfer has to buy himself the latest/greatest putter every year because of (fill in your technical nonsense here), yet has been three-putting since 1986. All the technical increases in golf technology in the past 40 years are all arguably justifiable or technically provable in one way or another. Yet the overall average scores and handicaps amongst people using all these high-tech clubs and balls has basically not moved more than a stroke or two - up and down - in that entire time.

For all the "improvements" in technology in the past half decage or so, and for all the penetration of that technology - both state-of-the-art and "vintage" - into the Great Masses in the past 20 years, has the quality of the average music production actually gotten any better? In every poll taken on this board in the past three years of "best sounding' or "best produced" or "best engineered" album, the same set of top five or six Usual Suspects always comes up in varying orders: Beatles (Abbey Road or Sgt. Pepper), Pink Floyd (Dark Side of the Moon), Steeley Dan (Aja era), Metallica (Black Album), Radiohead (OK Computer).

That's 1967, 1969, 1973, 1977, 1991, and 1997. Not one in the past 10 years, and most of them concentrated in the 60s and 70s. I might add that most of these albums were released before most of the people on this board were born, so it's not just a matter of nostalgia voting. Not exactly a glowing track record for the progress or effect of technology in this racket. Certainly not an indication that things are actually getting better.

IN CONCLUSION
The poor disdain the gear they can't afford, the rich and successful justify the gear they can afford.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter either way. Talent will rise to the top on both sides of the glass, regardless of the gear used, and technology is no substitute for talent.

G.

 

[cusebassman]

In the end, though, it doesn't matter either way. Talent will rise to the top on both sides of the glass, regardless of the gear used, and technology is no substitute for talent.

G.

Sweet! Knowing that my material is the best material ever written (cus it is and I said so), I can just get myself a 4-track Portastudio, a radioshack dynamic with 1/4" male plug permanently wired to it, and go to town.

What's sad is (and this has come up before), the stuff I did back in the day was just as interesting and entertaining as the stuff I am recording now. I had a couple of those RadioShack dynamics, a PortaStudio from like 1995, and recently I listened to the tapes, and was surprised to find it wasn't completely unbareable garbage.

It was all covers recorded with one mic on my brother's vocal, one on his guitar amp, and two over my drumset. In our untreated basement. For all the money we spend on great mics, computer technology, software, interfaces, preamps, yada yada... it would seem we've only come so far, hehe.

If I were only doing this for the sheer love of making music and wanting to document what I've created, then I would probably have been on a ledge after listening to those recordings, because I (like many here) have spent an assload of money, and the results aren't proportional in quality to the difference in cost b/w the gear I had then and what I have now. I love the gear itself, so I have horded it And that makes up the difference.

Or does it? *finding ledge - back later - or, not, I guess*

 

[cusebassman]

I will clarify my previous statement and say that I do prefer my Rode K2, DMP-3, DAT decks, KRK monitors and nice Yamaha console to the PortaStudio, RS dynamics and 20 dollar headphones, and the quality is considerably better... but you can do a lot with both setups, and that's why Im glad I am a young'n nowadays - I have lots of free time to spend developing my chops on good equipment. Not fantastic stuff - but good quality nonetheless.

 

[mr. torture]

Yes, it is..

 

[SonicAlbert]

SouthSide, go for it with the UA 2192. It's a great sounding converter, I love mine.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

SouthSide, go for it with the UA 2192. It's a great sounding converter, I love mine.

Yeah, well, I'm due for a complete hardware re-vamp, and I've been eyeng that 2192 possibly as part of a short gold-channel chain, but real life is getting in the way of my toy budget right now. Hopefully in a couple of months after some other matters that have been dragging on are finally cleared up, I might be ready for all new gear. That's if I don't wind up spending it all on some land instead...

G.