Myth or Truth? That Pro Studios Have Real Stuff that We Could Never Get or Afford.

[acorec]

If the customer believes that a $2000 Avalon preamp is "their sound" and you don't have one, you're not getting the work. Period. Doesn't matter what your skills are. The mind is a terrible thing!

That's why engineers/studios "sell" their equipment list to you when trying to get work. For some people, that stuff matters. And there is no telling them otherwise.

A major label recording consists of the producer, first. Pro big name producers charge a ton. The reason they use certain equipment is that they are *used* to that equipment and know what they can get out of it for sure. These producers use certain studios because they have used them many times before. So, if a certain producer needs an Avalon, he needs an Avalon based on experience. The name of the game is to do the recording efficiently. The record labels need updates every day and wasting time learning new equipment is not efficient. In the few pro studio recordings I was involved in, pre-amps and mics were not exchanged for better sound very often. The engineers on staff knew how to get the sound because they knew the rooms and knew how to place the mics to get the sound. When you work everyday, all day. you get pretty good at troubleshooting bad sound. You also get very good at knowing, almost off the bat, what mic or pre-amp will get the job done.

 

[charger]

Compressor with pumping, breathing, artifacts, a very narrow sweet spot, grainy reverbs with metallic tails, and on and on.

All those things are in style now though. Pumping and breathing compressors are cool for rock. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a cheap modern reverb that sounded as bad as you describe--especially considering that unless you're doing female pop vocals, there's not a whole lot of reverb in the mix. And there are free software convoultion reverbs that sound amazing.

 

[Dot]

Another thing to keep in mind, in the famous Steve Albini interview that's out there on the web, he says of all the records made each year, hundreds of thousands, less than 1% make airplay and less than that become hits. So, even having the right engineer, the right gear and the right musicians, will not guarantee success.

It's all art, little science, that's why I'm here the variables are endless and challenging.

Good point. And there are also hit records that get made on cheap gear. Ace of Base recorded their first record in an apartment in Stockholm with a small Soundcraft board and ADAT machines. Remy Shand recorded his first Motown record at home on Roland VS880's.

 

[SonicAlbert]

All those things are in style now though. Pumping and breathing compressors are cool for rock. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a cheap modern reverb that sounded as bad as you describe--especially considering that unless you're doing female pop vocals, there's not a whole lot of reverb in the mix. And there are free software convoultion reverbs that sound amazing.

Charger, you have an answer for everything. I'm going to give up now.

I go with my ears, and I know what I hear--guess I'll just leave it at that.

 

[chessrock]

The reason they use certain equipment is that they are *used* to that equipment and know what they can get out of it for sure. These producers use certain studios because they have used them many times before. So, if a certain producer needs an Avalon, he needs an Avalon based on experience. The name of the game is to do the recording efficiently.

That's probably the best point made so far. Kind of like the idea behind chain restaurants. They do well because, even if you're from out of town, you know exactly what you're going to get when you order.

Obvously, a studio could get by using some less expensive, higher-value yet less common equip. and still get great sound . . . but they wouldn't be in a position to attract as much freelance work or outside engineers, simply because the people renting the studio need to feel comfortable and familiar with what you've got.

 

[manning1]

years ago i attended a songwriters workshop with friends.
one of the leads brought in a multitrack tape of a hit record that sold all over the world. really opened my eyes. it was impressive for sure but what surprised us all were the flubs. overdubs, mistakes, and even noise on some tracks. it was very kind of the leads to take us through this workshop.
it became apparent through discussions in the workshop the reason why the song was so successfull was it was a very good song.
and it also became apparent in the workshop that brilliant engineers
did the production. and i think this is the key aspect , a good song and good engineers. this is the conclusion i came away with.
today we have lots of affordable gear if one picks wisely in the budget area.
i dont agree a lot of budget gear is junk. its just a question of picking the RIGHT PIECES, that and the song and being engineers ....

 

[lpdeluxe]

And being brilliant. It's an even playing field, in some respects, unlike, say, current F1 racing, where Ferrari has all the money and all the drivers and all the technology and everyone else is racing for 3rd place. I sincerely believe the record industry would LOVE to have a magic box that nobody else had that ensured the hits, but they don't...so those involved all try to stack the deck by getting the best gear, and the best engineers, and the best talent into the blender. [Damned if I don't buy the best stuff I can find & afford, too.] But the best of everything doesn't guarantee music that is even listenable. I swim laps for exercise, half a mile every morning (usta be a mile til I pulled my shoulder) and God bless the lifeguards, they just gotta have that contemporary loud drum-machine-driven noise turned up loud on the boom box. Is the music industry nuts*? That stuff is crap. I was just listening to my stepdaughter's Father's Day present, which is Ray Charles live at Newport & Atlanta, recorded at venues in 1958-9. Nobody out there today can get within a hundred miles of it. I'm sure they used state-of-the-1959-art gear to record it, which is 'way inferior to what I've got on my computer out in the studio. [Don't forget, that good old analog tube gear burnt up and failed ALL the time!] So why is that CD better than anything I record? Or so much better than Brittney, or Cher, or any of the other purveyors of musical fast food? Because you can't package brilliance. What you CAN package is polished turds and market it as brilliance to a generation raised on 140dB subs in their cars and mp3s on their players.
=coff coff= wheel me out onto the balcony, nurse.
___
*Yes, they are. They think you can market art like McDonald's hamburgers, forgetting that when you do you reduce the artistic level to that of Mickey D.

 

[junplugged]

update on the book I can't put down,

Phil Ramone was saying that he tells the performers to never stop no matter what. He says that often mics fall or move or he runs into the studio during a take to make adjustments while they're still playing and if it's to move a mic, he ajusts the level when mixing.

Abbey Road studios were monitoring on one speaker, they were using mono. They upgraded to 4 tracks.

In the Geoff Emerick interview it was mentioned the huge difference between a track on a 1/4" of tape for a 2" 4-track compared to 1/12" of tape on a 2" 24-track.

and a very cool thing was that the cymbals were sounding backwards because they were on the back end of the compression from the bass drum - as the amplitude restored - talk about living with compression pumping!

 

[junplugged]

I was reading something a long time ago that got me to ask the question at the top of this thread. I didn't remember where I read it, then today I was looking around and found it. Funny, it's from this web site, but before the BBS so since I use a bookmark to get here I don't usually go there:

"I had an opportunity to spend four hours at one of Boston's leading mastering studios last night. Interesting experience. The "funniest" thing, though, was that of all the equipment in that place, I did not recognize a single piece! Many of the company names, sure...Lexicons, TCs, Sonys, etc., but the boxes themselves, no. When you go into Guitar Center and go to the "pro audio" deparment, turns out that's actully "amateur pro audio." I certainly didn't expect to recognize everything there, but zero devices? Wow.... - https://homerecording.com/mastering.html

 

[chessrock]

I think most mastering facilities can probably get away with using esoteric stuff that outsiders might not be familiar with . . . since most mastering places aren't trying to rent out to freelancers and what not. It's usually just a one-man operation, and occasionally a few guys. They can use whatever gets the job done for them without worrying about having the "staples" around to please visiting engineers (like a tracking studio would).

 

[hockeyshooter]

I went to SSL's 'factory' (more of a cottage) in Oxford once as a friend of mine worked there. He was building an on-air desk for BBC Radio 4 at the time and it was interesting to see inside these massively expensive mixers. They are essentially hand-built, which goes some way to explaining why they are so expensive. Each channel contained a computer just to contol the meter.

The more expensive the kit, the less people can afford to buy it, meaning the more it costs - vicious circle. I've been out of the business for years and have only recently got into it again in equipping a small studio for recording and webcasting seminars. It amazes me just how cheap most kit is these days - some stuff you simply couldn't build for the money - if fact I doubt you could even buy all the components for what they charge. Even (eg: Yamaha) high power rack amplifiers, that we used to consider cost the earth, can be had for reasonable figures. Common items, like Shure SM57s and 58s, are actually cheaper now than they were 20 years ago.

Chris.

 

[AdrianFly]

Check this out. (I'm not selling a CD.. just a tune I did on a home recorder. I'm a hobby musician)



Walker of Plains (8 meg mp3)


Personally I'm happy with the quality of this "home recording". My masterhouse was a crappy software program that features tube emulation. If I wanted anything better you would better believe that I'd pay to have OTHERS mix it all up in a real studio and Master it professionally.

I like writing material but really hate the whole mixing/mastering process. I'd prefer to leave it to the professionals and just tolerate the results from my limited ability here at home until the opportunity arises.

Peace,
//AdrianFly

 

[pipelineaudio]

Record companies ARE NOT necessarily recording studios.

Dont lump us together, it is usually an adversarial relationship between the two

 

[AdrianFly]

Ahhh.. the bitter taste of the "Spec Deal". I thought I was the only one who could taste the bile.



//AdrianFly