Open Discussion - Consumer gear vs. Pro gear

[famous beagle]

Believe me, I would love to have your Otari machine. I'm sure it sounds amazing. However, besides the cost, it's simply not practical for me right now. I simply wouldn't have room for it, much less a 24+ channel mixer to go with it. I think that's probably another reason why someone may opt for the 388. Granted, it's not a small machine, but it's got a lot smaller footprint than a 24-track Otari and 24 channel mixer.

Personally, for me, I couldn't justify spending the kind of money on something like that unless I was actually making some money with it. Granted, I wouldn't (at this time) spend $2K for a 388 either for the same reason. I just don't have that much disposable income at this point. (Fortunately, I got mine for free.)

I think you misunderstood my threshold reference a bit. You seemed to be talking about it as a ceiling, where I meant it as a floor. In other words, you can spend $3K or more on a Fender custom shop Strat, and it'll sure be nice, but I think you and I can both agree that a Mexican Strat is more than capable of producing pro-quality tracks. I mean, Jack White used some crappy old Sears catalog instruments, for Pete's sake! And he not only achieved a "pro" sound and had hits, he helped start a mini musical revolution!

And my point is that I think some of those machines are above that minimum threshold for being able to produce seriously good, perfectly listenable recordings --- even "pro" by some standards (assuming they're professionally mixed, mastered, etc.).

Again, that's just my opinion.

 

[miroslav]

I think that question has come up before...if anyone has done that, and I think there were maybe 1-2 experiments like that, but they were more about comparing an analog pro rig to a digital rig...not specifically what you call consumer gear to pro digital gear.

I don't want to speculate on which would sound better in that scenario...but how about this, instead of the digital rig...you went to an Ampex 1/2" 2-track, which is considered "THE" pro 2-track mixdown tape deck...vs. your consumer deck.

I know the Ampex would sound better...BUT...if you want to ask the guy on the street, he won't even know what to listen to, because he's listening to the song, not the sound quality...and THAT is what gets confused in many of these discussions.
Like the "Nebraska" example...people are not listening to the sound quality or have the option to compare a "Nebraska" done on a pro rig.
Also, for the style of *content*, some would say the crappy 4-track cassette quality lends a certain beneficial spice. It's like if you listen to some Robert Johnson...you WANT to hear the scratchy needle along with his playing.
So people will confuse what it is about a recording that they are really tuning into to decide if the like it or not.
I can listen to less then ideal sound quality music, and still like it a lot...but I don't want to record less than ideal sounding if I can help it.

In a studio setting, you may be after that "scratchy needle" sound on some songs... but overall, the idea is not to handicap yourself by having all your songs sound like that (well, maybe some people would)...so sound quality has to be there, and often it doesn't need to be something that people focus on to compare, it's just there. So you can add the scratchy needle effect, but stull keep the recording medium and sound quality very high.

People adjust their hearing to whatever they are listening to, and rarely do typical listeners focus on sound quality. So if they only heard the record done on some consumer gear...they wouldn't even have any other reference AFA comparing quality...but there have been re-releases that improved on the typical MP3 earbud experience...and when people had the opportunity to really hear and compare, the quality was noticed, but it takes time to erase what your brain is already use to.

There's been many articles about the dumbing down of audio sound quality once digital came onto the scene, and everyone suddenly was making music in their bedrooms... because way too much was being put out there that wasn't using the digital state of the art...rather it was still low-grade stuff.
I've heard so much crap on YouTube by typical home rec guys...and the clips have all kinds of hits and people saying how much they really like the song...but the sound quality is shit.
People have become use to crappier sound quality because of that...however, IMO, that still doesn't mean that as recording guys, we shouldn't try to always raise the bar, rather than become complacent and accept "good enough"...or even lower the bar.

(I gotta go, have to finish some work outside...so I'll check back in later.)

 

[miroslav]

I'll just add this quickly before I go do my work...

I've heard some of your recordings...and I don't deny that you get very good quality out of your productions.
I'm not suggesting that because you're using the 388...that your stuff doesn't sound good.

Now...just imagine if you had full use of a pro studio, and the time to fully learn and appreciate all the equipment in that studio.
I'm positive that you would understand and appreciate what the difference are in using the pro studio gear...and that it does matter...sometimes subtly, but when you hear and compare, you want that subtle improvement.

 

[famous beagle]

I don't think we're that much at ends on this. I, like you, try to upgrade my gear whenever possible. I'm currently at the best version of my home studio I've ever had, which consists of:

Recorders:
Tascam 388
Tascam Porta Two HS
Tascam US-1800 interface (And lots of plugins of course)

Compressors:
Warm Audio WA-76
Warm Audio WA-2A
Klark Teknik KT-2A
Klark Teknik 76-KT
Warm Audio Bus Comp
Behringer MDX2000
DBX 163x (x2)
Alesis Micro Limiter

Mic Preamps:
Warm Audio WA-273EQ (2 channel)
Presonus MP20 (with Jim Williams mod) (2 channel)

EQs:
Klark Teknik EQP-KT (x2)
Ashly SC-63 parametric
Rane PE15 parametric
DOD R-431 graphic (x2)

Effects processors:
TC Electronic M350 multi-effect
Fostex 3050 digital delay
Lexicon MP5 multi-effect
Lots of guitar pedals to use (I love using my Electro Harmonix Memory Boy)

Mics:
Warm Audio WA-47 tube mic
MicParts T12 (built from kit)
sE Electronics sE8 SDC (x2)
Behringer C2 SDC (x2)
SM57 (x2)

In the last year, I've acquired a lot of the best outboard gear I've ever had. I still haven't really had a chance to use it much (recorded some vocals for my wife and her band) because I've been so busy with other things. But I'm looking forward to it.

Like I said, I just think people trash-talk some of the consumer-grade machines too much.

I think you're right about the listener's experience with regard to sound quality. It definitely affects what they hear/don't hear. Youtube has done a crazy job of dumbing down a lot of stuff. Audio quality, sure, but also video editing.

Do you remember when jump cuts used to be taboo? Now they're literally all over the place on premier Youtube video channels. It still drives me nuts, but apparently it doesn't bother a lot of people now.

 

[miroslav]

I see you also went for some of the new Klark-Tekink gear.
I have picked up a pair of each of their comps and the EQs...but that was over a year ago...and then I was dealing with my mother's health and her passing...and then I started the new studio planning and subsequent construction process...so TBH, I've not really even had a chance to use any of the too much. I think I used the two 76 comps on the last thing I was mixing before I pretty much had to stop.

I've not done any recording/mixing since October 2018...almost 2 years now. That's when I had to drop everything and do an emergency trip to FL to move my mother up here with me, to live here permanently rather her doing the summers here, and winters in FL...but over the next 3-4 months her health got worse, and I was just completely wrapped up with that, so the old studio got now use, other then me going in there once in awhile to play some guitar for a bit, and just listen to some of the tracks I had already worked on...and then even that came to halt.
I can't wait to get all this work finished and my new studio set up, so I can get back to the music, and some playing and recording. I've got a bunch of songs that were written or half written...and I'm so eager to get back to all that.

Anyway...I've never trash-talked consumer gear just because it was consumer gear. I only trash-talk any kind of gear if it actually sucks.
Some consumer gear finds it's way into pro studios and manages to sit quite comfortable alongside the more expensive high-end gear.
As I already said...my original point, and what got this thread going, was more about making gear choices wisely...and I can't see playing some bloated price on consumer gear if something more professional is almost equally within reach...especially if your plans are to expand and improve your studio into the future.

I look at your list of gear, and you're certainly not someone who is just looking for a corner to park a computer, a mic and a small guitar amp...and that's it.
So with a few more upgrades, your going to be well into a pretty pro setup. I can see a nice 2" tape machine and 24 channel console in your future.

 

[hautbois16]

I have used one or two good consumer open-reel recorders which would make recordings of sufficient quality that they could be stood up beside a digital recording and difficult to distinguish in a blind test. On the other hand, I am not sure whether a properly-done recording made on a cassette-based consumer unit could "stand up" beside a modern lossless recording done with digital equipment. Don't get me wrong, though; for there could very well be a piece of cassette recording equipment which I have never seen or read about that would do the job. On all the consumer-grade cassette recorders of which I have experience, wow and flutter get into the picture, particularly when a piano or pipe organ with no tremulants active is the source of the music. Since wow and flutter come from mechanical parts such as idlers, springs, and the like, digital recordings should be free from these distortions because no mechanical parts are involved in the actual recording process.
One experience of mine comes to me in this connection: When I performed a pipe-organ recital several years ago, it was recorded on a professional-grade system to give me a cassette copy of that program. When I wanted to share it with a person who assembled programs of organ music, he said he would like to have a copy; but it had to be submitted on CD. It was easy for me to do a CD copy here on my computer, so I sent it off to him. He replied in a week or so that he could not use the copy because he had discovered that the music had come from a cassette recording. In addition to the problem of wow and flutter, the narrow tracks available on a standard consumer-grade stereo cassette recorder are more susceptible to noise and "drop-outs" occurring because of imperfections in the tape. The slow tape-transport speed compared with that available on even a consumer-grade open-reel recorder imposes a limit on the maximum frequency response available from a cassette deck. We recall that in the consumer market, cassette transport speed is 1-7/8 IPS while the transport speed on even a consumer-grade open-reel deck can run up to 7-1/2 IPS - four times the speed of a cassette transport. Of course, many of us know that there are commercial-grade open-reel decks that can "gobble tape" at 15 IPS! I have never owned one of those machines mainly because I couldn't afford a new one, and good used ones are treasured by qualified recordists and require super prices if they would part with one.
All the above being said, however, I have certainly made my share of multitrack recordings by bouncing between two good-quality consumer stereo cassette decks. With Dolby Noise Reduction, I could get acceptable recordings having three or four tracks. Going further, I still enjoy very much those performances I did because of the musicianship I put into them - because I worked to get the best recordings I could obtain from this equipment in a backroom of our home with no professional-quality studio wall treatment. I have believed for a long time - and I still believe - that a true musician wanting to make a bit of music can do much with what he has even though it is far from the best available equipment of the day.

 

[grimtraveller]

I come at this from the perspective that throughout the history of recording, there have always been great quality recordings and "not so great quality" {ie, shitty} recordings. And this from the professionals on top grade gear.
In a way, it doesn't really matter if professional gear is way better than consumer gear. At the end of the day, do you enjoy the end result ? That's the only thing that really is of relevance. When I first landed on HR back in 2009 one of my initial impressions was that there were a number of people that could not enjoy music unless it was 'just so' and a lot of those people veered towards a gearslutz viewpoint. For me, home recording is a bit like home DIY. The house of a builder and decorator or interior designer isn't going to necessarily wow me any more than that of an enthusiastic amateur that uses lesser equipment but knows how to maximize what they have. It all depends on what the result is. It's a bit like the difference between the great music writers and those of us that do it for a hobby. It's by no means a foregone conclusion that a professional writer is going to write better songs than me or you.
Some people emphasize the gulf between consumer and pro gear. But then, some people do the same thing with the different pro gear itself !

 

[miroslav]

In a way, it doesn't really matter if professional gear is way better than consumer gear. At the end of the day, do you enjoy the end result ? That's the only thing that really is of relevance.

That's not the discussion here though...and it kinda always ends up going back to that, "If I like it, nothing else matters"...which is really only one perspective.

The underlying point of the discussions about the differences between pro and consumer gear...or let's not just keep saying "consumer", because there is a lot of inexpensive, low-grade gear that wouldn't really be used by the typical consumer...and it also isn't pro gear....but I guess for the sake of simplicity, we'll go with it.

Anyway...that's the consideration...does using one vs the other make a difference in the sound quality.
Whether you "like" the end product is not the relevant point...why?...because that can be a purely subjective perspective.
You could have three guys banging away on garbage cans, recorded on some real crappy device, and you might "like" that end result...but it may be horrid sounding quality, which is the objective view, and which would be the difference between a high quality recording, and one that you may not necessarily like, subjectively.

It appears that it's difficult for many home rec people to distinguish the difference between objective ands subjective views, and there is often the attitude that as long as "I" think it sounds good, then it means what I'm doing and the manner I'm doing it and the gear I'm doing it with...are somehow not to be judged in any objective way, because "I" like the end result.
One can say that about anything, and thereby eliminate any kind of objective comparisons...which isn't really valid.
There are definitely ways discern audio quality, and while there may be some process that is apparently subjective, like listening to version A and B and then comparing...there is most certainly an objective measuring that occurs during that process in order to end up with a result and choice.
It's not simply about "I like it"...which one can say about anything if they choose to without giving any objective reasons.

 

[famous beagle]

That's not the discussion here though...and it kinda always ends up going back to that, "If I like it, nothing else matters"...which is really only one perspective.

The underlying point of the discussions about the differences between pro and consumer gear...or let's not just keep saying "consumer", because there is a lot of inexpensive, low-grade gear that wouldn't really be used by the typical consumer...and it also isn't pro gear....but I guess for the sake of simplicity, we'll go with it.

Anyway...that's the consideration...does using one vs the other make a difference in the sound quality.
Whether you "like" the end product is not the relevant point...why?...because that can be a purely subjective perspective.
You could have three guys banging away on garbage cans, recorded on some real crappy device, and you might "like" that end result...but it may be horrid sounding quality, which is the objective view, and which would be the difference between a high quality recording, and one that you may not necessarily like, subjectively.

It appears that it's difficult for many home rec people to distinguish the difference between objective ands subjective views, and there is often the attitude that as long as "I" think it sounds good, then it means what I'm doing and the manner I'm doing it and the gear I'm doing it with...are somehow not to be judged in any objective way, because "I" like the end result.
One can say that about anything, and thereby eliminate any kind of objective comparisons...which isn't really valid.
There are definitely ways discern audio quality, and while there may be some process that is apparently subjective, like listening to version A and B and then comparing...there is most certainly an objective measuring that occurs during that process in order to end up with a result and choice.
It's not simply about "I like it"...which one can say about anything if they choose to without giving any objective reasons.

But objectivity is not always cut and dried.

Take for example an American Strat and an American Les Paul. The LP costs more, but I don't think anyone can say it's objectively a "better" instrument than the Strat. They're just different.

When it comes to recorders, you have some more statistics, but again, it's not really as though you can always stick to the numbers.

If we compare your Otari MX80 with, say, a Studer A827, most people would probably say the Studer is a higher quality machine, yes? But why? Is it because it has a flatter frequency response than the MX80? Is it signal to noise ratio? Is it the build quality (which affects durability but not necessarily sound quality)? Is it the price tag? These aren't really rhetorical questions. I sincerely don't really know.

What I meant when I talked about a threshold way back was the bottom threshold of what's considered good enough to achieve quality results.

Obviously, an American Strat is a good enough guitar to achieve quality results. I would argue that a Mexican Strat it also plenty good enough.

An SM57 is obviously a good enough mic to get quality results on a lot of sources.

What's the threshold for recorders? Is your Otari MX-80 good enough? I would certainly say yes.

What about an Otari MX-5050 MK iii (used for Nirvana's Bleach album) 8-track? Well I would say yes.

What about ... etc., etc.

What's the benchmark? What's the gauge? How do you decide what's acceptable and what's not?

 

[miroslav]

But objectivity is not always cut and dried.

.....


What's the benchmark? What's the gauge? How do you decide what's acceptable and what's not?

Of course objectivity is not always cut and dried...but we can certainly say that subjectivity is never cut and dried.

AFA what's the benchmark...etc...?
When in doubt...I fall back on what the majority of people who professionally work with audio have to say about gear.
That too is not always cut and dried, and there's certainly some individual preference between different types of pro gear that goes even into the opinions of pros...BUT...these are people who DO THIS FOR A LIVING, and they generally try to do it at the highest level possible, without looking for the lowest common denominator.

I will generally do a lot of reading, and considerations when buying gear, and not just go on 1-2 pro reviews, because I do understand specs, I am very familiar will the wide variety of gear that is out there...and the last few years, I've made a point NOT to settle for lowest common denominator just because of budget constraints or because I'm thinking "it's only a home studio"...because I don't want any more marginal gear.

I don't want to take the view that I can "make it work" if simply try harder. IOW...my perspective is that the gear should not create limitations or even possibilities of limitations (unless it's some kind of intentional goal). Of course, that doesn't mean the sky's the limit...I can't run out and buy a $250k large format API console...but just like these days there are all kinds of quality levels and price points for inexpensive and "consumer" grade gear, which has flooded to market BECUASE of the growth of home recording...there are also different levels of high-quality gear that would certainly have a place in most pro use situations.

That is the kind of gear I consider worthwhile, and not that I'm considering investment and resale value...but quality gear rarely loses value over time...not counting expensive oddball stuff that is suddenly out of production, etc.
Most home rec people tend to not look beyond the inexpensive, lower priced stuff...and they buy into the notion that it's as good...or that if a pro users it and makes it work, then they can too..etc..etc.

That doesn't mean it's all bad...not at all...but I really don't see the difficulty in knowing how to gauge, and how to compare, and what the benchmarks are out there...IF people are looking to raise the bar rather than just having a low budget "good enough" perspective, which if that's their main goal, is fine...but we are not talking about buying low budget...rather it's about the difference in quality between the low budget and the higher end.

Considering the Otari MX80 vs one of the Studer 24-track machines...mechanically, the Studer machines are better built, probably use better electronic components, not so much for the sound, but just overall, for machine performance and functionality. AFA sound...TBH, their not all that much different, and many people don't like the Studer because it's rather transparent/neutral...which the Otari is also...and they prefer something like an MCI, which I was looking to buy, but the Otari just ended up being there at the right time, and considering how hard it is to ship these big decks, finding one that is also close enough for pickup, is a real plus...which was the case for my MX80.

If I was running a commercial 24/7 studio for high-end clientele, a "newer" Studer would be something that would guarantee more uninterrupted operations...plus, they tend to be more robust for maintenance and there's probably more of them out there if parts are needed.
That said...I've seen the MX80 turn up in quite a good number of very pro studios...sometimes sitting next to a Studer or MCI...because it's easier when you have choices...so all these decks are pro-level machines.

 

[famous beagle]

I don't want to take the view that I can "make it work" if simply try harder. IOW...my perspective is that the gear should not create limitations or even possibilities of limitations (unless it's some kind of intentional goal). Of course, that doesn't mean the sky's the limit...I can't run out and buy a $250k large format API console...but just like these days there are all kinds of quality levels and price points for inexpensive and "consumer" grade gear, which has flooded to market BECUASE of the growth of home recording...there are also different levels of high-quality gear that would certainly have a place in most pro use situations.

Again, though, this is just a matter of personal preference. It's kind of like someone arguing why in the world wouldn't you want limitless tracks (and plugs, etc.) on a DAW instead of just 8 (or 16) tracks in analog with limited outboard gear. You make it sound as though it should be a given that someone should upgrade their gear if given the opportunity. But some people very much enjoy working with limitations. Some people find infinite options stifling because it creates option anxiety.

By the same token, some people really enjoy the quality they're getting from certain pieces of gear, whether it be recorders, mics, instruments, etc. Since beginning to use it around 2006, Thom Yorke really likes the way his voice sounds with an EV RE-20. If someone else feels the same---and especially if they're just recording themselves (or their band) in their home studio---then why in the world would they/should they spend money on a vintage Neumann/Telefunken/AKG/etc. just because it's a more "professional-grade" mic?

If someone really likes the quality they get (or one of their favorite artists gets) from a 388, then why would they spend and the extra money and bother to upgrade to a Studer 2" machine?

There are many more reasons that people choose gear other than sound quality or fidelity, etc., including practicality, aesthetic, workflow, etc. So as long as the quality or fidelity of a machine is not a detractor to them, and they're enjoying what they're producing, again ... why on earth would they want to upgrade?

Again, that threshold I've talked about is entirely subjective. There are no laws that say you're not allowed to record an album on a 388 or a Mac with a Digidesign 001 interface or a Tascam 144 or whatever. And artists have made platinum-selling albums on each one of those formats.

For people who enjoy working on these kinds of setups, a 2" tape machine and 24/32/48-channel mixer would be complete overkill and unnecessary for them.

In fact, some people would look at your philosophy --- that you don't want the gear to place any limitations on you --- as silly, considering the fact that you predominantly just use the studio for yourself. Why do you need all of that? The simple answer is that it's the way you like to work ... and that's many times the same answer for anyone else.

We also can't forget that, with upgraded gear often comes a new learning curve (not always, but many times). And there's something to be said for taking that out of the equation and just learning something inside and out. So, like I said, as long as someone isn't feeling as though the recorder is a ceiling they're bumping their head into, then why isn't good enough "good enough?"

You said you felt that way (that you hit a ceiling), but that doesn't mean other people feel that way.

 

[miroslav]

You make it sound as though it should be a given that someone should upgrade their gear if given the opportunity. But some people very much enjoy working with limitations. Some people find infinite options stifling because it creates option anxiety.

I did say that some people intentionally chose to work with limitations, which is a different point...but the rest of you post above pretty much supports my point...that there ARE differences between pro gear, and everything else.

Initially, you're argument was that consumer gear can be made to work and sound as good as pro gear, in the right hands...but now you're saying it's about preferences to upgrade or not, and some people are overwhelmed with too many options....which are different discussions.


You acknowledge that upgrades are available, which means you move from something of lower quality to higher quality...but then you're saying it has more to do with individual choices, otherwise, all gear can give you the same quality...which isn't the case.

What someone "enjoys" working with doesn't really define what gear provides more sound and operational quality.
AFA upgrading with every opportunity...YES, if you can do it, you should do it, if your goal is always to try and raise the bar...because as I've said many times...many home rec people don't know what they don't know...but many sure do make a lot of assumptions about stuff they don't have and/or have never used.
If someone simply doesn't care what's out there beyond what they are used to...that's certainly a choice...but it doesn't make it the best choice necessarily.

When someone says they love working with their cassette portastudio, and they love the end results...but that's the only thing they have ever worked with...their views on gear quality are not really all that valid, IMO. So yes...the more you experience, the better your references and your choices.
Some folks cling to nostalgia, but that isn't the best way to achieve a wide perspective of what is "best". They don't know what they are missing...so their assumptions are skewed.

It's like the guys who grew up with classic Rock...never wanted to really experience anything else. They are convinced it's the only music worth listening to still 40-50 years later.
While I love classic Rock, I would call their limited listening experience a skewed perspective. Of course...good luck trying to convince them of that!
I know listening to music for enjoyment is subjective...there isn't a clear better/worse...but the less you experience, the less valid your perspective.
With gear, there is also an objective comparison, not just about "liking/enjoying"...but empirically, what provides better sound and functional quality.

 

[famous beagle]

Initially, you're argument was that consumer gear can be made to work and sound as good as pro gear, in the right hands...but now you're saying it's about preferences to upgrade or not, and some people are overwhelmed with too many options....which are different discussions.

I don't think that was exactly my argument. If that's the way it came off, then it wasn't my intent.

What I meant to say was that some of these machines can actually sound much better than they're given credit for, because they're usually not given a chance to show what they can do. This is usually because:
1. People usually start off on them when they don't know what they're doing regarding recording/engineering.
2. The rest of their equipment (instruments/mics/etc.) is often not that great.
3. Their musical skills are often not that great.

That's all I've been trying to say ... that these machines can usually sound much better than people give them credit for. And, in the right circumstances and if you play to their strengths---i.e., you're not going to be able to recreate "Bohemian Rhapsody" very well on a 4-track---you can often achieve what many people would deem "professional" results with them.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't upgrade if they want to upgrade, or that there's no point in upgrading. If someone wants to upgrade, they should upgrade. If they don't want to upgrade, they shouldn't upgrade.

When I listen to someone like Kelley Stoltz and hear this song, for example:
Kelley Stoltz - Prank Calls - YouTube

I'm not thinking about the recording quality at all. I'm not thinking, "What would this sound like on a 2" Studer?" I just dig the shit out of it, and it sounds perfect to me.

When I listen to Radiohead and hear this song, for example:
Radiohead - Daydreaming - YouTube

I'm not thinking about the recording quality at all. I'm not thinking "What would this sound like on a 388?" I just dig the shit out of it, and it sounds perfect to me.

Do they sound different? Sure. But one doesn't sound more "professional" than the other to me.

The quality of the music is always the most important thing. And as long as the quality of the recording is not getting in the way of the music to me, then the recorder (and any other piece of gear in the path) is doing its job, IMO.

It's the same reason that I can listen to a Metallica song that was recorded in the top studios in the world and with the best equipment available and still hate it ... because I (usually) hate the music.
Metallica: Enter Sandman (Official Music Video) - YouTube

It's the same reason that I can listen to a Stevie Wonder track from 1968---with recording quality that would be totally shunned by today's standards---and think it's the frickin' best sounding thing I've ever heard.
Shoo-Be-Doo-Be-Doo-Da-Day - YouTube

Again, what sounds "professional" IS and always has been completely subjective.

When someone says they love working with their cassette portastudio, and they love the end results...but that's the only thing they have ever worked with...their views on gear quality are not really all that valid, IMO. So yes...the more you experience, the better your references and your choices.

There are many people on the other side of the fence who have never worked with Portastudios or a Tascam 388 or Tascam 38, etc. and yet still call them crap compared to their digital rig just because they're parroting what they've heard. Wouldn't their views be invalid as well?

 

[miroslav]

I don't think that was exactly my argument. If that's the way it came off, then it wasn't my intent.

What I meant to say was that some of these machines can actually sound much better than they're given credit for, because they're usually not given a chance to show what they can do. This is usually because:
1. People usually start off on them when they don't know what they're doing regarding recording/engineering.
2. The rest of their equipment (instruments/mics/etc.) is often not that great.
3. Their musical skills are often not that great.

I have no dispute with that...never have.

My point was that you can take any of "those" machines...make them sound as best as their technology and your skill will allow...and then move to a pro machine, and suddenly you see even more daylight.

Whether or not people want to...or like to...and all that...those are difference considerations.

So getting back to the "if a pro used it"...sure, a pro will get more out of the same gear than someone just starting out or dabbling...BUT...a pro will get even MORE out of a pro rig, which is why most use the best gear they can.
Some people think it's just a mindless "gearslut" thing, where these guys are simply compelled to spend more money just to have the latest shiny thing...and maybe sometimes that is the case, and it really IS just a new "shiny thing" and little else...
...but generally, most gear upgrades are warranted because there is a perceived improvement, often it can be quite stark and undeniable, sometimes very subtle but still there.

You know...looking at my own experience with monitors...when I started out with a new studio after moving to NY, I got what were considered pretty decent Tannoy monitors...then when I upgraded to my Mackie 824 monitors, I realized just how bad those Tannoys sucked....but then, I was always feeling like the Mackies, while a noticeable upgrade, weren't delivering all the goods...so I bit the bullet and dropped some serious cash on a pair of Focal Twins...and WOW!...I was blown away at how much of an improvement there was to the Mackies. I even had them side-by-side, and did the back-n-forth switching...and I think even my 86 year-old mother could have heard the difference when she was still alive, with her very bad hearing.

I could have been on those Tannoys still...since that they were considered pretty decent, so why upgrade...and I would never know.
Now as I move into my much large new studio...I'm not sure if my Focal Twins will be enough for the larger space, and I'm ready to upgrade to one of the bigger Focal monitors...but I want to first hear the Twins, because sometimes the room can work with the speaker to extend it's performance...we'll see. I'm not eager to drop even more serious cash on bigger Focals, but I can't deny that something has a limitation if it is there. I can choose to live with it...but I don't buy into that mentality that gear needs to be limited so as to provide a different working mentality. Sometimes it helps, often it's just a handicap.
You can limit yourself with the production even when you have unlimited possibilities...it's not about limting the gear, it's about your production approach. Don't use 200 tracks in your DAW...use only 24.

People just starting out should maybe work with limited gear...because it can be overwhelming, and it's best to really learn rather than skim over way too many options...but after that, upgrading is the natural progression.
When you're a kid, you start off on a little 3-wheel bike...not a 10-speed racer...but you don't stay on that 3-wheel bike forever, just because it's easy and you like it.

 

[famous beagle]

I think we're starting to run in circles a bit. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with most of it. I think you understand what I'm saying, too.

I just don't like the way some people talk about prosumer/consumer analog gear -- you know the real snobs that say crap like "Sure it has a use! It makes a great doorstop/paperweight/etc."

Like .... if someone wants to record on something, then let them frickin' record on it, FFS. Why the need to trash talk it?

I'm not saying that you do that. But I imagine you've seen the kind of comments I'm talking about.

Anyway .... I hope your new space is everything you're hoping it will be. It certainly looks pretty sweet.

 

[Steenamaroo]

I don't think that was exactly my argument. If that's the way it came off, then it wasn't my intent.

Your original point was pretty clear, to me. This thread doesn't seem to be about it, though.

There are lots of recordings where the performance just sucks you in so recording quality isn't even really a consideration. Agreed.
Lots of people probably wouldn't even hear the difference in a blind test between average/decent gear, and best of the best. Agreed.

I don't see the bit where you're saying there is no difference. (there is one...Agreed)

 

[miroslav]

I think we're starting to run in circles a bit. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with most of it. I think you understand what I'm saying, too.

Yes...I get your point, and you know I never suggested that the less expensive/consumer stuff is all trash...but I didn't see that as the central/original topic.

My point has always been that there are quality differences that can't be denied...AFA what people use, it's their choice.
I only take some issue when there is that "it doesn't matter" attitude, which tries to suggest that there are no real differences...which is either naïve or done intentionally by some folks to diminish any reason to upgrade....so in effect, they trash pro gear as just expensive hype, which to me, is even worse than trashing consumer gear.

I never meant for this discussion to be just between you and I, so in that regard, yes, we've covered everything more than once.
You're already over that consumer/pro line with your setup, and in pretty deep......so you do appreciate upgrades and quality, and you're not one of those guys just clinging to their cassette portastudio, convinced there is no need to ever change, because there would be nothing to gain in quality.

I also will admit that my own goals are probably a little more "out there" than typical home rec folks...not saying that to sound snobby, it's just that my more limited home rec period occurred many years ago...and I've been upgrading and reinventing my setup for a long time, always with the same intent I adopted years back, that I wanted to get as close to a pro setup as I could. For many years, I couldn't touch the gear I would have loved to have...but in the last 10 years or so, my situation has allowed me to raise my own bar higher, so I'm still going with that same intent.
This new studio will be my 5th iteration, and I really went a bit deeper this time...and I think probably it will be my last one. This new studio project has really taken a toll on me...way more work than I expected, and cost...but there was no turning back, I was all-in once we broke ground.

 

[famous beagle]

Your original point was pretty clear, to me. This thread doesn't seem to be about it, though.

There are lots of recordings where the performance just sucks you in so recording quality isn't even really a consideration. Agreed.
Lots of people probably wouldn't even hear the difference in a blind test between average/decent gear, and best of the best. Agreed.

I don't see the bit where you're saying there is no difference. (there is one...Agreed)

By the way, I just noticed your covers on your website. I had been to the site before but had missed them before. Phenomenal work! I really love your vocals on "African Skies" and "Where Do the Children Play," especially. Great stuff, man!

 

[Steenamaroo]

Thanks man. Very kind of you.
I haven't recorded a cover in ages - other things taking up hobby-time. I should fix that.

 

[miroslav]

I haven't recorded a cover in ages - other things taking up hobby-time.

Heck...I haven't recorded anything in ages,...way too many things have been taking up my fun-time for too long.
The closest I've been to "recording" over the last 2 years is downloading new songs I like off YouTube.

The last song I finished writing my mom heard me playing on the piano one day, and she came into the studio to tell me she liked what I was playing...after that, everything went bust AFA music making. My mom's health went downhill, and then she passed away...and then I started this major studio construction/house overhaul project...and since then, nothing, not a note, nothing.