Pushing the Rei envelope

  • Thread starter Thread starter S8-N
  • Start date Start date
Iain:

I agree with you for the most part with the following exceptions:

1. People also become angered when falsehoods are perpetuated, and

2. you left out a 4th component to a project...quantity, which is typically inversely proportional to quality and speed, and directly proportional to price.
 
Actually, there's a fifth component to any project; it's called VALUE (note the use of semicolon). On this BBS it is often and colorfully referred to as "Bang for the buck." Quality, quantity, price, and time are relevant only in relation to their perceived value.

The concept of "value" brings this thread full-circle to S8-N's original post. My read of his original and subsequent posts is that he believes he gets more for his money (more value)from his home studio than he has from his experiences with pro studios. He isn't saying his studio is as good as the pros: "A studio full of high-dollar gear is obviously CAPABLE of producing a better sound than my bedroom full of low-end gear..." He's only saying he personally hasn't received VALUE from pro studios, and he's also proud of his acomplishments in his little home studio. There's no threat to the "Big Boys" here.
 
In fact, the "Big Boys" and Gals really want a few home studios around so they can send some of those who are really just kidding themselves (because they really can't afford the "Big Boys'" studio hourly wages).
 
We'll I did get some interesting replies to my cheap, good or fast theory, but I think both missed the point. Value for your money is already there: it's one of the compromises of the three. As for quantity, that IS speed. If you have the money, you can produce good stuff quickly, and thus lots of it. If you want to get pro sounding results cheap, it's always going to take longer. My home studio is built around bang for buck, and the net result is that I will never mix anything nearly as quickly as I could were I to shell out studio rental rates.
Doing stuff on a computer while keeping all audio purely in the digital realm can produce excellent results, but will always be slower than a fully equipped studio. Any interested in just how far it can go should listen to recording by Barry Truax, which are done entirely in C-sound, a free audio programming language, on computer. No mics, no commercial software, no equipment at all except monitors, and his stuff sounds friggin' incredible. However, having used C-sound, I don't even want to guess how long it took him.

Iain.
 
Sorry for just wandering in here like this...

I'd really like to sit down with you, sonusman, one day...you must have one impressive set of ears! Anyway, my comment is that there's quite a lot of correct on both sides (if sides can be taken at all).

1. The current crop of equipment and software available to home users enables any of us (theoretically) to create a CD of better technical quality than a lot of the stuff being sold commercially.

2. Few people know how to get the most out of this stuff, so we're left with Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap).

3. However, the above two observations also yield another truism. Since the average musician can now afford superior sound -- good enough for commercial use, certainly, even if not mixed or recorded quite as well as the biggies could do -- then many home-grown individual visions of music now have the chance to be heard on an equal footing to "pro" music. That will allow the good stuff to finally be heard without the necessity of "big time recording labels"...and it will take its rightful place.

Don't let the BS spread by record companies get you down...the idea that good quality affordable recordings just mean that lots of bad music will be heard. That's exactly what they want you to believe...that only they can pick the winners. If you listen carefully, that's the same message being trumpeted by the mass media (the Internet allows just anyone to publish), and that's exactly why they're so scared of it.
 
I have argued with myself over these same questions quite a lot.

One of my favorite albums ever is one that is really rough recording quality but the music is just so awesome that the roughness doesn't bother me at all. In fact it gives the album some character. The album is Rod Stewart's "Gasoline Alley". The album is way better than his newer albums even though his new albums have top-notch production quality. The music is what matters. A bad song is going to sound bad no matter what you record it with.

TUcci
 
I have to say that not nearly as many people would like Dave Matthews Band if it wasn't for Carter and the hugeness of their sound. For me, the quality of production is a treat, but it's not the production style I want for my band. As an engineer though, you need to know how to do all kinds of production. Of course, you'll have the style you prefer or what you're best at; which a lot of times aren't the same.
 
I know I haven't really posted much, so you guys probably will think I don't know what I'm talking about, I've just been finishing up the Mark II Version of my recording rig. :) Hope to post some MP3s soon, though I must warn you, It's gonna be some weird sounding stuff (genre wise).

Anyway, I'd just like to make a couple points:
1) In regards to the "money spent is a direct reflection of quality" comments made: I wouldn't say it's money, It's more familiarity with your setup. Think of it this way. Some bands have recorded their albums in home studios. Not commercial studios open to the public, home studios. I know they take it somewhere else to get it mixed and mastered, but you need to think of it this way. If you work long and hard enough, you should be able to get a close sound. I know this from an independent band who can make some damn good recordings in their "home studio". Check out Hydrovibe. www.hydrovibe.com.

2) Let's face it. What most of us are recording right now isn't going to be in your Tower Records, at least the recordings we've made. If the songs make it there, it will be done in a pro studio (most likely). Rather than pressing for the sound you hear on your commercial CD collection, press for a sound that makes your friends say "whoah, you did that?" The ultimate test is giving a demo out to people who don't know you will, and ask them what they think of the sound. Trust me, people who aren't really into the underground scene have EXTREMELY picky ears. :)

Just wanted to say that info / garbage. :) Laterz.
 
An interesting eye opener for production quality vs time vs money is on Pink Floyd at Pompeii, the video. It shows them making Dark Side of the Moon, including the unbelievably convoluted patching and sequencing of the 1971 or earlier synths. I'm sure everything else they used was top notch, but it looks like one hell of a do-it-yourselfer for the synth stuff, and it still sounds like one of the best produced albums ever to my ears. There is also a ton of really enlightening and inspiring stuff in the book "Good Vibrations, A History of Record Production" by Mark Cunningham. After reading that, I figures that the only thing standing between me and my studio producing a pro sounding album, is . . . me. ( I am now taking engineering courses. )
A couple of other good listens are any of the Miles Davis albums of the fifties. Generally produced in one day, a few takes of each tune, no overdubs, direct to four or even two track. You can even get the re-release of "L'Accenseur pour l'echaufaud" with some of the takes dry and then reverbed.
I also read somewhere the Cowboy Junkies "Passion Horses" was largely recorded with some nice mics in a church, direct to two-tracks.

That said, I'd love to know what the pros around here would consider top priority when it comes to buying studio gear. I have been setting up my rig by buying only pro-gear, a little at a time, and then skipping components instead of using bad ones. So what should I be drooling over? Especially, how much should I spend on near-field monitors and a power amp? (Have been using good headphones and a cheap stereo. I'm bad, I know.)

Thanks, Iain Duncan
 
sonusman said:
I have never felt a need to do any of the above on this bbs because I feel that it is a place to share ideas without having to make anyone look bad.

If you want to state you opinion, state it. But, don't state it in a way that is intended to make someone else look bad. The last thing this bbs needs is for people to be going at it for all to see.

If you have a problem with something I say or post, contact me directly. Don't put my name in a post with a thumbs down icon unless you are prepared for the verbal onslaught that will follow the next one you choose to do that way.....Peace.

Ed "Rei"
Click to expand...

Since Iam a newbie I was digging around an found this thread. Interesting huh. My my my...how the BBS seems to have changed over the years.

SoMm
 
Interesting archive!

There were two points that immediately jumped out at me on this thread:

•Back then apparently there were moderators how participated in these discussions. (Although in this case not much value was added by the participation).

•Unless I missed it (I skimmed through pretty fast) not one person mentioned what, to me at least, is one of the most compelling differences between a top pro studio and the typical home set-up: room acoustics. For all the focus on the improving quality of inexpensive gear, those square rooms with 8 foot ceilings are still sucking the life out of most home projects.
 
Personally I haven't found this thread to be as insulting as everyone makes out - I'm sure I read more vitriolic statements on other threads. Hey this is a S8-N thread :):)

I can understand why S8-N achieves better results at home than at a so-called pro studio and I also accept that Ed could get better sound with better gear and a better studio.

The main factor we are talking about is TIME!! at a pro studio the $$clock is ticking so lottsa guys go and book two days and put down 12 tracks and wonder why it doesn't sound like a pro recording...pro recording takes time!! you don't just settle for the one guitar sound you spend hours trying different amps, guitars, strings etc. till you get the one that really works with the song. Then you move on to the next guitar sound. You need a big budget to record at a pro studio.

Now I assume that S8-N also spends hours and hours at home trying to achieve the same thing.........the right sound for each track..... because he has the time I'm sure he gets close to it.

Now if only Ed and S8-N could spend the same amount of time at Ed's studio I bet Ed would make a far superior recording and S8-N would probably play better as well :D:D

cheers
John

Ditto about the acoustics littledog.;)
 
I think it's funny that SoMn was just kinkin' around and happened to pick out a quote that so perfectly captures what Ed's attitude was:

"Hey, let's all just talk about the art of recording…. peace, love, and harmony man:)…… otherwise I'll rip you a new asshole!!!!:mad: "

;) :p:D:D:D

barefoot
 
Thanks for the time capsule Gidge!

It's really amusing to listen to people furiously debate why "fat chicks" can never make it in the music business. Seems to me they have a pretty narrow view of pop music.

Anyone ever heard of Aretha, Martha Wash, Queen Latifa, Jennifer Holliday, Patti LaBelle, Sister Carol, Etta James, etc.? Thank God for R&B and Reggae! And if you wanted to include Gospel...

Guess what, though? Good looks (male or female) are an advantage in almost every field of endeavor! Even Eve Anna ain't opposed to "selling" her image a little in the print ads.

I guess S8N is long gone from this board. Judging from that thread, no great loss.
 
no great loss?...you couldnt be further from the truth......
 
sonusman said:

I have looked around at what a lot of the people on this bbs are using for recording. It would be safe to say that I probably have the most extensive setup on here
Click to expand...

Sonusman,

you must not have seen Littledog's setup. I suspect that son of mixerman might be packing some mad wood as well.


The problem I have is why does my one-track vocal recording sound so grainy compared to the real life singer?. I have decent gear yet it sounds so digitized. I cant wait for converters and mics and stuff to catch up.

I also have to say, Sonusman, I have heard homerecordings that sound far better than stuff done in 500k studios. I dont know if those studios can be considered pro since they dont sound pro, but they are expensive. A homereccer recording a drum set and an amp and vocalist can afford to get a few top quality pieces of gear and get the job done, whereas, an expensive studio has a 96 channel board but will only use about 12 for the same recording.
 
Please don't take Ed's statement out of context

>you must not have seen Littledog's setup. I suspect that son of mixerman might be packing some mad wood as well.

Ed made that statement on 1/4/2000.

littledog joined the BBS in May, 2002.
SofMM joined in June, 2002.

There's been a whole ocean of change in the world of recording and in particular homerecording that went on between those two times.

When it comes to computer technology three years is like an entire lifetime. So 30 months is a VERY long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top