The Secret To Great Recordings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Todzilla
  • Start date Start date
Wrong, and right. A good room does get out of the way, and that's just it. When it doesn't get out of the way, there's no way to get a good recording and it matters not about what talent you are recording, not A bit. You either have standing waves, comb filtering, flutter echo, or you don't, it's that simple. If those things are there you are NOT getting a good recording out of it, talent or not. So sorry, the room is far and away more important because you aren't getting a good recording with those problems present and that's the bottom line, talent or not. I don't care if you are recording the beatles, put them in a small bedroom with no absorption, standing waves and bass build up that smears the low end and they would laugh you out of the neaighborhood because they would know you weren't recording anything that would be releasable in any pro's opinion.



TeyshaBlue said:
I've read Ethan's stuff. I've studied with Marty McCann. I understand, at an intimate level, the effects and the importance of a decent room. I've understood those priniciples for a couple of decades now. You're still incorrect. You may garner a more accurate recording. But is it better? Questionable....enough so that I can tell you that by emphasizing the room uber alles, you're making a mistake.
The room is simply...a room. A poor room will detract from a recording...sure. Generally speaking, in my opninion, a good room does nothing other than get the hell out of the way. Talent can and does transcend a poor room. A good room is important...even desireable. The most important? I think not.
Click to expand...
 
TeyshaBlue said:
Again, don't confuse accurate with good.
Click to expand...


Playing word games? An accurate recording is a good recording. Any sound can be recorded and either recorded good (accurate representation), or not (standing waves, low frequency smear, flutter echo, ). if you have those things, you won't have a pro sounding recording, that's the bottom line, talent or not.
 
they had great rooms in the 50's too. The difference between the 50's recordings and the modern is age and equipment, not rooms. The rooms back then were fine too in the pro world.

Bottom line, you aren't geting a good recording if you have standing waves, low end smear because of bass build up in corners, and flutter echo and such. That's why micing is so important. Good engineers can move the instruments or amps, turm them certain ways, put thick blanlets up, set amps on beds, all kinds of stuff to attempt to put a stop to bad room aspects. This is why you will hear many pro guys say micing technique is all important, but they are really talking about the room here as well.

Show me a good recording done with these problems present, I'll be waiting. I can show you a gfew good musical performances, maybe hundreds of them on these sites, yet done in bedrooms and the recording is simply beginner sounding, though the playing is great. You show me the opposite.


TeyshaBlue said:
Exactly. Give me a good musician everyday.
The notion of a good room can be pretty plastic. I seriously doubt anybody wants to track acoustic guitar in some of the settings John Bonham found perfect for tracking his drums.:laughings:
Click to expand...
 
true-eurt said:
Just by the forum the OP posted in, says this should be about great recording *technique*...which would not be about performance of artist..or even so much the room...but the performance of audio engineer...knowledge he posesses and skill level applied to the process..?
Click to expand...
I agree with the main point of your post, True, but I'd put it out there that the beginning of engineering technique - especially for the home self-recorder - lies in the decision of whether to hit the record button or not, and if already hit, whether what was recorded was worth saving.

Here's where I put the Nomex suit on, but it seems to me there's a whole lot of recording going on these days not for the sake of the music, but for the sake of the recording itself. When basing or starting one's technique under those kinds of priorities, there's a whole lot of Record and Save As buttons being pushed prematurely. And when people make their recording decisions that way, they shouldn't be too surprised if the result isn't often as good as they would like it to be regardless of the follow-up technique.

It's all about the music - or at least it's supposed to be. It's not really about the recording. Sure, we want to make as good a recording as we can afford and muster, but if the music ain't there, the rest is meaningless.

And conversely, if the performance is worth it, I'll put up with a bad room if I have to in order to capture the performance. I'd rather not have a bad room of course - I'm not advocating bad rooms - but good music in a bad room is far more valuable to me than bad music in a good room. I'll take Ella Fitzgerald with comb filtering and bad bass nodes over Taylor Swift in Nashville's best live room any day of the week.
Noisewreck said:
And I would go further and say that in many ways, doing simple stuff well, keeping it interesting and moving can be far more difficult than virtuoso technically perfect show-off stuff. It takes keen musicianship to pull off the simple stuff well.
Click to expand...
Amen, brother. In fact, I have a problem with people equating "virtuosity" solely with technical "showing off". That's just so Amadeus "too many notes" sounding of as definition to me. IMHO, "virtuoso" means having the ability to do the right thing well when the muse and the music calls for it, whether that means diving into it feet fist or laying back and just riding over the top of it.

G.
 
jeff0633 said:
Obviously not enough to stand behind your statements with any substance. Show me a great recording in a bad room.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't respond to call-outs. Never have, never will. Your idea and my idea of what makes a good recording are vastly different...as they should be. But that crappy, poorly mixed 192kbps MP3 you posted isn't a good representation of the ridiculous points you're trying to make. You gotta come better prepared than that. Although, if that's your idea of a "great recording in a great room" it wouldn't be hard for just about anyone to pwn your ass back into Ethan's loving embrace. Stop swinging for Winer's sack and look at the big picture.
 
Notice the original poster said "Great recordings", not great songs or musicianship. The point is, give me ella recorded in a great room a thousand times over her ecorded in a poor room. This isn't a degree thing. You either have a good enough room to get a *PRO* recording or you don't, it's really that simple. Put Ella in that poor room and she'll still give a great performance, but no way would a record label release it if the low frequency is smeared with booming frequenceis and flutter echo all over. It will not be a great recording, only a bad recording of a great singer giving a great performance. To say that a great performance or great musicianship can compensate for a smeared low end and flutter echo in a poor room is simply not true, and the priginal poster said "the secret to great recordings". The secret to great recordings is a great room. You aren't getting a great recording in a bedroom with no absorption and huge low end problems, great talent or not.




SouthSIDE Glen said:
I agree with the main point of your post, True, but I'd put it out there that the beginning of engineering technique - especially for the home self-recorder - lies in the decision of whether to hit the record button or not, and if already hit, whether what was recorded was worth saving.

Here's where I put the Nomex suit on, but it seems to me there's a whole lot of recording going on these days not for the sake of the music, but for the sake of the recording itself. When basing or starting one's technique under those kinds of priorities, there's a whole lot of Record and Save As buttons being pushed prematurely. And when people make their recording decisions that way, they shouldn't be too surprised if the result isn't often as good as they would like it to be regardless of the follow-up technique.

It's all about the music - or at least it's supposed to be. It's not really about the recording. Sure, we want to make as good a recording as we can afford and muster, but if the music ain't there, the rest is meaningless.

And conversely, if the performance is worth it, I'll put up with a bad room if I have to in order to capture the performance. I'd rather not have a bad room of course - I'm not advocating bad rooms - but good music in a bad room is far more valuable to me than bad music in a good room. I'll take Ella Fitzgerald with comb filtering and bad bass nodes over Taylor Swift in Nashville's best live room any day of the week. Amen, brother. In fact, I have a problem with people equating "virtuosity" solely with technical "showing off". That's just so Amadeus "too many notes" sounding of as definition to me. IMHO, "virtuoso" means having the ability to do the right thing well when the muse and the music calls for it, whether that means diving into it feet fist or laying back and just riding over the top of it.

G.
Click to expand...
 
jeff0633 said:
Obviously not enough to stand behind your statements with any substance. Show me a great recording in a bad room.
Click to expand...
The entire "Exile On Main Street" album, "Nebraska", just about anything recorded at the original Stax Records, etc., etc.

G.
 
i was going to say something...but no need :)


Oxygene was recorded in a kitchen...I know it doesnt count, I just love that fact
 
jeff0633 said:
Notice the original poster said "Great recordings", not great songs or musicianship.
Click to expand...
A great technical recording of something not worth listening to is not a good recording in my calculus. I can give you a fantastic recording of absolute silence, So what? there's no point to it. It's all about the music. Without that, the rest is meaningless. One cannot judge the recording while ignoring the content, they are a unified whole.
jeff0633 said:
You either have a good enough room to get a *PRO* recording or you don't, it's really that simple.
Click to expand...
"Pro" recording? What does that even mean. there's a whole shitload pf "pro" recordings made in expensive rooms that sound like crap.
jeff0633 said:
no way would a record label release it if the low frequency is smeared with booming frequenceis and flutter echo all over.
Click to expand...
Wanna bet? If there is a demand for the album and the budgeted time and money are used up, they'll release dog shit on a platter to make money. They might give Ella the needed time and budget, but not everybody is Ella, either.

Look at Taylor Swift. She gets the budgets and the studios and the engineers, but the poor girl couldn't properly carry a vocal tune in a satchel. That is NOT a great recording - I don't care how sonically and technically shiny it might be - if the performance sucks, the recording sucks.

G.
 
You do know that Ethan is a regular here and will probably show up to speak for himself soon enough, right?

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top