New Behringer Gear Released!!!

[robgb]

The gear they were using at the time was the best available. They weren't using budget gear, only the very best they could get their hands on, build, or modify. That's the key. So the recordings were not in any way compromised by the gear of the time, and in fact they put *equal emphasis* on the quality of the gear as they did every other aspect of the production.

And I think the recordings you mention are still wonderful today. In every respect. Just my opinion.

Yes, of course the gear they were using was great gear, but by today's standards, some of that very same gear would be considered crap. Yet despite this, the recordings still sound wonderful because of the TALENT involved, not necessarily the gear.

Then you've got guys like Emitt Rhodes who, back in the seventies, had to scramble for a decent eight track to record his first couple of albums -- Or Eurythmics in the eighties doing Sweet Dreams on a funky eighttrack in the living room...

Certainly, great gear is a great help. But equally important? Not in a million years.

 

[robgb]

Sometimes the high end gear is the right answer, and sometimes the basic gear option is plenty good enough.

Exactly. The point is that you have to use your own ears to decide what you need to spend a lot of money on and what else you can get away with budget-wise.

But what is so objectionable is the ATTITUDE that some have that if it's low priced it must be crap. There are those who wouldn't even CONSIDER getting a piece of budget gear, even though it might save them a lot of money. And that's just stupid.

 

[acorec]

Gear is not dead last, it's equal in importance to the other factors. Not more important, not less important, equally important. If you have the other three factors, but lousy gear, what you have is a great performance and a compromised recording. All factors are equal.

I also agree with the poster that said he only feels like he wasted money when he bought cheap gear. Exactly how I feel, after years of gear buying and using experience. Virtually every bargain basement prosumer piece of gear I've ever owned has had to have been bought over and over again. Either because it broke down, never functioned up to a decent standard, or my ears outgrew it. Better gear lasts longer, and in the long run costs less.

That's the idea that I can't seem to get across on these message boards: buy better and save money in the long term. People keep accusing me of gear snobbery, but a gear snob is the *last* thing I am. I'm trying to be helpful with these posts, but there is often an odd defensive posture taken by some. There's no need for that, this is not personal.

Again, buy better and save money in the long term. It works like this:

Purchase price is only one factor in figuring the cost of a unit. Most people look at this as one lump sum. In that way of viewing things, a lower dollar figure equals a lower price. But in practice this is not how it works. The reason being that gear is used *over time*. So time is a factor in the cost of the unit.

You need to amortize the cost of the unit over the period of time that it will be used. This changes the "value" equation quite a bit.

A bottom fishing prosumer unit will cost less up front, but its period of usefulness will be shorter due to a variety of factors, adding to its cost per year. The better piece of gear will cost more upfront but have a longer period of usefulness, lowering its cost per year. Great equipment, and I mean the really great stuff, is basically a lifetime purchase, so in some ways the most expensive gear becomes the least expensive when you consider the time factor.

I have spent thousands and thousands and thousands on budget gear that I have eventually had to upgrade. All that money was indeed wasted. I have kicked myself many times for not putting out more money upfront on the better gear, because in *every* case I would have saved money had I done that. Spending money on cheap gear is WASTING money. It is that simple.

So the ultimate moral of the story is: if you've identified a need for your studio, spend *as much* as you can possibly afford to meet that need. Everyone's budget is different, but what's the same is the principles behind getting the best value for your dollar. And that does not necessarily mean hunting down the lowest priced gear.

Yep, exactly. I say this over and over but still end up being labelled as a "gear snob". So be it. I guess I am a gear snob then. But, I too have wasted so many $$$ on low priced stuff when I first started out (in the 70s). The only difference is that back then budget equipment costed like mid-level equipment today. If you are in it for the long run, buy the best you can get and move on with the music. If you cannot afford good equipment, buy the cheapies and be happy with what you got. There is no middle ground.

 

[acorec]

Exactly. The point is that you have to use your own ears to decide what you need to spend a lot of money on and what else you can get away with budget-wise.

But what is so objectionable is the ATTITUDE that some have that if it's low priced it must be crap. There are those who wouldn't even CONSIDER getting a piece of budget gear, even though it might save them a lot of money. And that's just stupid.

The reason I never buy budget gear is that it never saves me a dime. In the end, I know I will not be able to use whatever it is for anything other than a stop-gap. Budget gear just causes me more problems down the road. I think the main exception to this is mics. I have some budget mics that are really great at what they do and are just fine if used on a few tracks here and there. They are very affordable and work very nicely aside the high-end mics. That is pretty much my limit as pre-amps and mixers etc. cannot be worked around.

 

[robgb]

The reason I never buy budget gear is that it never saves me a dime. In the end, I know I will not be able to use whatever it is for anything other than a stop-gap. Budget gear just causes me more problems down the road. I think the main exception to this is mics. I have some budget mics that are really great at what they do and are just fine if used on a few tracks here and there. They are very affordable and work very nicely aside the high-end mics. That is pretty much my limit as pre-amps and mixers etc. cannot be worked around.

It depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to get clients to come to your studio and get paid to record them, then naturally you'll want to got with the mid to higher budget gear. The best gear will attract customers.

If your goal is to produce your own CD in order to attract buyers or maybe an A & R guy, then the TALENT matters a lot more than the gear. A bad musician won't fly even with the greatest gear and a great artist will shine through even if the recording isn't high budget pro quality.

Let's not forget that Springsteen recorded an album with a portastudio, a couple of SM57s, an Echoplex and mixed to a boombox. And the result, while not sonically great, is considered by many to be a masterpiece.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Let's not forget that Springsteen recorded an album with a portastudio, a couple of SM57s, an Echoplex and mixed to a boombox. And the result, while not sonically great, is considered by many to be a masterpiece.

Yeah, but he was already Springsteen. It wasn't his big break album, it was a followup album where he was doing somethng different, trying to break the mold a bit.

I'm not saying talent doesn't matter. Just that if you have great talent it deserves to be showcased in the best possible light. To do less is to waste that talent. I'm also not talking about demos or concept albums where the gritty lowend sound is part of the deal. I'm talking about sounding as good as you possibly can, serving the talent to best possible extreme.

Also, in my case, I'm not trying to attract clients into my studio. My rig is for my own use only and on any composing projects I get hired for. What's cool about that is that I cna choose gear that is personal and geared toward my own sound. I don't have to worry about attracting or pleasing a wide variety of clients.

As far as considering budget gear, I do that all the time. I even break down and buy something every once in a while. I usually regret it and end up getting rid of it at a loss. The only low priced gear I keep is the vintage stuff that was originally designed for pro studios, and is now cheap thanks to plugins.

I would certainly consider and keep any low budget piece of gear that had the performance I'm looking for. Absolutely. I'm not crazy, and I actually hate spending so much money on this stuff. The problem is, the budget gear simply doesn't have the level of performance I demand.

Quality comes at a price, it is really that simple. Corners can't be cut without some sort of compromise. If you can live with the compromises, then great. Be happy and keep that money in your bank account. But if you can't live with the compromises, then you've got to spend a lot of money to get the level of performance you want.