So let me get this right....

[endserenading81]

so let me get this right......Check levels, record, mix, EQ, compress, gate, master, and PRESTO, you got a pro recording? I have been recording in these steps for awhile and still don't believe I've used the full potential of my system. Am I missing something, or is it just my engineering skills? Lets just say I was freakiN Geaorge Martin. If I, George Martin, had this:

M-Audio Omni I/O w/
Delta 66 Sound Card
ART TPS II Tube Mic Pre unit
Shure SM 57
AKG D112
2 Oktava MK012s
Studio Projects C1
Line 6 POD
Steinberg Cubase VST32
Wavelab Lite...

would it be possible to create not just decent recordings, but GREAT recordings?!!
I'm not hoping for Madonna quality here, maybe just Mogwai quality.
SO which is it guys?
Work on my engineering skills OR work on getting better equipment?

Thanks,
Rob

P.S. I will say that I have made recordings of quality that "approach" my favorite indie bands. Appleseed Cast, Mineral, Sigur Ros

 

[chessrock]

Let's say you wanted to be a world-class race driver. Seems simple enough, right? 1) Hop in car. 2) Turn on ignition. 3) Drive really fast untill you get to the finish line.

You ever see the movie "Better Off Dead?" : "Put on the skis. Go down the hill . . . really fast. If something is in the way, turn. You could be an Olymipic skiier if you followed those simple rules.

Let's say you wanted to be a professional photographer. Just get a nice camera, aim it at something and shoot, right? Piece 'a cake.

Or a professional guitarist. Pick up a guitar. Learn some chords, and start playing.

I suppose you could be a world-class cheff . . . so long as you had the right ingredients, kitchen, and a good recipe. Just follow the instructions. It's all there, isn't it?


It's all easy stuff. You can do literally anything with the right equipment and an instruction manual, can't you?

 

[endserenading81]

ha ha

that was beautiful

Thanks,
Rob

 

[DigitMus]

The 2 ingredients that make a good recording engineer:

1) Years

2)Ears

There are no substitutes or shortcuts for either one.

 

[manning1]

engineering skills. i'm still learning after 20 yrs.
martin engineered using 3 track studers remember.
i'm sure martin would churn out good songs with what you have.

 

[knightsy]

George Martin (or anyone) would be able to do good work with what you've got. Maybe not WORLD CLASS, but I think you guessed that already.

Ponder this: Is George Martin a recording engineer or a producer? There is way more to making great records than hitting "record". Knowing when a part is dragging, knowing when the song needs to modulate to another key, having ideas to improve the chorus. This is the role of a producer, an objective and skilled ear. If the guys you're recording have poor arrangements or songs, the recording will sound poor, and might actually (wrongly) get the blame for the track not "rocking". If the song is really good, who cares what the recording sounds like? The first thing you notice is a good song, it make take a couple of listens before you say "that acoustic guitar is really way too bright".

Oh BTW, this is not to say that great engineering is not worth striving for, but great engineering is the icing on the cake of a really good song, it helps bring the song out and make it easier to listen to.

 

[ds21]

Plenty of people have made many Great recordings with less quality equipment then even modest bedroom studios have today, look at those early beatle recordings and the equipment they had, I guess it depends on your def. of a great recording. On the flip side you can take world class equipment and make a recording that sounds like %#$&^, I'm sure we've all heard a couple in our lives. Looking at what you have, maybe a better vocal mic and pre would help, but as mentioned above it takes more than equipment.

P.S. looking at your "steps" very very few pros master their own recordings. plus don't use all your "steps" if you don't need too, I've been guilty of doing something to a track just because I think I should, then I'll strip it down and what do ya know it sounds better.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

George Massenburg with a PortaStudio will get far better results than a monkey with a Neve!

 

[Middleman]

Your example of George Martin using that gear is like asking Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel with a box of crayons.

He had to learn colors, form, mixing paint, how paint bonds to plaster, how light dances on dried paint. He also had to master hand-eye coordination, perspective, building scaffolds, interviewing assistants and politics of dealing with the papal elite. After all this, would he try and paint a great portrait with crayons, probably not.

It's the same with producing the art of sound. First, that gear on its best day would only produce marginal results even in the hands of a master. However it would be a better result than an average musician/engineer could produce. You need to understand EQing, panning and balancing frequencies in a mix and, prior to this, tracking the sound correctly in the first place. You need to understand compression, limiting, delay, reverb, gates, multing.... The list goes on. Then you have to understand what every piece of gear does to sound so you can paint the picture you want. On top of this you have to know your speakers, translation considerations and quickly understand the characteristics of the room you are mixing in, or better yet, how to balance the room you regularly mix in.

Plus, master you own instrument, know how to EQ it for the mix.

Once you get all this down, then you can start to understand creating new sound, the art of experimenting for result vs. luck.

One or more of these is why your results are not up to par and Digitmus said it well, "years and ears".

I just read Mike Shipley's experience of EQing every consonant in Shania Twains latest hit to please Mutt Lange. It also takes attention to detail which a master has developed the patience for.

 

[Massive Master]

Some of the best recordings I've ever made were done live to two-track MiniDisc - or were they...

Let's see... A bunch of 57's & 58's on the vocals & instruments, 200 feet of snake, a nice noisy Allen & Heath GL console, some old, er, I mean vintage rack gear, cheesy SPX990 reverb, a dirty old 160 across the master buss.

Reasonably small room (450 seats or so), and the mix altered to "meet halfway" between a good house mix and a good tape mix (God, I hate doing that).

And of course, a good mastering session afterwards...

Anyway, I've done bunches of these sessions, and most have come out really well. As mentioned, most of the chips were down. Engineering skill only goes so far when you're just getting what you can to the two track - The audience comes first - The mix is made for them. Altering the mix slightly to make it a little more acceptable on tape, well, you can only get away with so much.

SO - Why do these mixes sound so great?

World-class talent. Nothing more, nothing less. Did MY skills have anything to do with it? Maybe a little, but it was more what I didn't do than anything I did do. These people are touring the country (some, the world) for a living. Some are veteran studio talent, some are Grammy winning headliners. They've got their sound down. They're using fresh strings and new heads every night. Their gear is state-of-the-industry - Not state-of-the-art. It's gear that they're familiar with, and know what happens when you turn the knobs.

Even with all of that, I listen to some of this stuff and start picking at it - The vocals are too loud and whacking the limiter. Well, that's going to happen on a board mix. It's the nature of the beast. The drums are a whisker quiet - Same thing. BUT, they sound great.

Long story short - Top quality recordings are made using top-quality sound and musicians. All the engineering skill and the greatest gear are no substitute for a great sounding and inspired performance.

They almost mix themselves.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

"Ears, Years, then Gear"

 

[endserenading81]

yup

thanks guys, I'm pumped. I'm gonna go record some more songs.
Thanks,
Rob