chessrock said:
If you're that serious about it, you should have a real engineer record it for you in the first place.
I agree that an experienced engineer will be the better way to go in both recording, mixing, and mastering. If you want to take it a step further one should also have a real producer.
There are however some people who are doing a very good job with their home studios that can benefit from having them mastered. No use throwing the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing all home recordings as inferior and not worth the final production phase.
Home recording gives you the opportunity to record when you want, how you want, off the clock. You will often get your best performances that way which is the most important part of recording correct?
After the tracks are recorded reasonably well, I would recommend taking them to an experienced local studio for mixing (for the serious musician) as they most likely have better gear, knowledge, and ears for creating the best results for your recording. They also supply another point of view and hopefully some good pointers on production.
After mixing, taking them to a reputable mastering facility creates another check on the quality of the audio. Having another set of experienced ears with dedicated equipment for the mastering process helps bring the product to another level and keeps the mix "honest", e.g. translates well to all systems not just the system at the mixing facility.
Home recordings are getting better all of the time due to advances in technology. When you see "home studios" like Sting's it goes way beyond what we think of as "home recording". The important piece is getting things right the first time, not trying to "fix it in the mix/mastering" when doing things at home. You most likely can't get the same performance a second time, but you can remix and master any number of times (when funds allow it) if it was recorded properly.
