J
jeff0633
Member
More gibberish. Point out the great recordings that clearly have the bad room problems, I'm waiting.
More gibberish. Point out the great recordings that clearly have the bad room problems, I'm waiting.
G
Greg_L
Banned
T
tango44
New member
I simply couldn't read all the pages in this....
WTF is low end smear? Guess I need to go back and read some more..
I will say this after reading the first 4 pages....the man's a machine to be able to actually hear all this stuff in recordings...too bad he's busy listening for the shit of it, and not actually enjoying performance.
For me, it's about the performance, and capturing it. Representing it to the best of my ability, so that the listener can experience it first hand as well, second hand.
I obviously don't know jack...but my worthless opinion anyway.
Edit: yes my skills suck, but we had as absolute blast doing this, and it was recorded in my little home studio room, no seperation. We're a 3 piece. And as i write this, I realize I'm probably off topic. sorry.
WTF is low end smear? Guess I need to go back and read some more..
I will say this after reading the first 4 pages....the man's a machine to be able to actually hear all this stuff in recordings...too bad he's busy listening for the shit of it, and not actually enjoying performance.
For me, it's about the performance, and capturing it. Representing it to the best of my ability, so that the listener can experience it first hand as well, second hand.
I obviously don't know jack...but my worthless opinion anyway.
Edit: yes my skills suck, but we had as absolute blast doing this, and it was recorded in my little home studio room, no seperation. We're a 3 piece. And as i write this, I realize I'm probably off topic. sorry.
Last edited:
J
jeff0633
Member
Here's a recording in what I consider a good room. Notice it's not an entire song, so since it's not a great song, can you still hear that it is recorded in a way that does not have poor bass definition and doesn't have obvious room problems? i can, but yet it's not a good song. go figure.
This is a friends studio in Nashville, different clips, same room.
I consider this room to not be in conflict with the natural sound of the instruments, so it is a good recording to me.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Those are nice recordings indeed. But I think most of us have heard home recordings that are just as good or better.
J
jeff0633
Member
gotta go folks, I enjoyed the back and forth, no hard feelings, not even to you Greg, it's all in fun my friend. You too Tey.
frederic
New member
That's actually pretty fair. I just took his words less literally.
Interesting, and on more than one level I agree with you. I view things a little differently though as my mind the recording room is an instrument in and of itself.
I happen to like jazz, and have recorded quite a bit of it over the years, and jazz trios do not sound good in dead rooms with midiverb III's adding ambience later. It just doesn't. A room full of hardwoods, drapes, reflectors and disfusors on the other hand works far better - you get controlled ambience - and in genres like jazz I think that's a very important characteristic - and the room is an instrument in a sense.
Since we (as a group) like to argue I'm sure someone will say calling a room an instrument is wrong and instead I should call it an "outboard" but I'll ignore those
kcearl
I see deaf people
it was going so well to...damn pacific time 
well for a large amount of us a room doesnt even come into play until mixing as we are in apartments, live with our families, are restricted by equipment...so Ive gained nothing from this thread other than to say
good work all round
well for a large amount of us a room doesnt even come into play until mixing as we are in apartments, live with our families, are restricted by equipment...so Ive gained nothing from this thread other than to say
good work all round
TeyshaBlue
It's the smell..
Fishmed
Well-known member
More great recordings made in non-"pro-quality" environs:
David Bowie - "Heros"
Iggy Pop - "Lust For Life"
Talking Heads - "Stop Making Sense"
Bob Dylan and the Band - "The Basement Tapes"
Most recordings made for "MTV Unplugged"
Pete Townsend - "The Secret Policeman's Ball"
Most "Soundstage" recording releases
Most stuff recorded at Chess records
The field recordings of Alan Lomax
Various Newport Jazz and Folk festival recordings
And, speaking of field recordings, there was that little one in that cornfield in northern New York state in the late 60s...
The album that comes to my mind is Ozzy's Tribute. I never cared for the sonics of it, but the labels managed to sell a couple of them and make a few dollars along the way.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
From all of us to all of you......
Bingo bungo boingo !
And so say all of us.
In the end, I think there were alot of cross purposes here and different interpretations of what the 'Zilla meant. I don't feel like I've witnessed a war though, like some past threads......In my usual two headed way, I could see alot of good stuff on all sides.
Bingo bungo boingo !
And so say all of us.
In the end, I think there were alot of cross purposes here and different interpretations of what the 'Zilla meant. I don't feel like I've witnessed a war though, like some past threads......In my usual two headed way, I could see alot of good stuff on all sides.
Last edited:
Zaphod B
Raccoons-Be-Gone, Inc.
Interesting thread. I'll add my $0.02.
With limited exposure to professional recording environments, I'll not weigh in on the whole "room" issue.
But if I had been convinced that it was impossible to obtain a listenable recording in anything other than a professional environment, I would never have begun my journey in home recording. Which would have been a shame, because I have generated a few recordings which stand up well in any sense. (Those few of you who have listened to my music will attest to this, I think.)
And, yes, they were recorded in a bedroom. BFD.
Maybe I don't know enough to know what I'm missing - but my ears know what they like.
With limited exposure to professional recording environments, I'll not weigh in on the whole "room" issue.
But if I had been convinced that it was impossible to obtain a listenable recording in anything other than a professional environment, I would never have begun my journey in home recording. Which would have been a shame, because I have generated a few recordings which stand up well in any sense. (Those few of you who have listened to my music will attest to this, I think.)
And, yes, they were recorded in a bedroom. BFD.
Maybe I don't know enough to know what I'm missing - but my ears know what they like.
philbagg
Just Killing Time
Wasn't the first Kings of Leon album/EP recorded in their basement?
kcearl
I see deaf people
the first album was recorded in two studios in Cali...not sure about the first EP though.....
Todzilla
New member
It'll sound like a great player playing with some annoying resonances compromising his/her recording
It'll sound like a great player playing with some annoying buzzes compromising his/her recording, although a great player would intuitively know how to avoid buzzes in his/her playing
A good guitarist will intuitively intonate strings with his/her fingers. A great drummer would have tuned his or her drums, as you noted
I don't see anyone suggesting those variables are irrelevant. My point, and those of many others on this thread, is that the skills of the player are the most important components in a great recording, I'll even go so far as to say a great sounding recording.
philbagg
Just Killing Time
Must have been the EP so!
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Wow, what a clusterfuck. 
I'll confess, I barely scanned the thread, because I couldn't wade through all the BS being spewed around. So, a few observations, some of which may have already been raised.
All else equal, barring the occasional "room sound" special effect, it's easier to get a more natural sounding recording in a good room. That said, I think I can speak for all of us when I say that almost none of us sit down and think how they can get the purest, cleanest, most uncolored sound on tape when they're making a recording, or else the SM57 wouldn't be everyone's go-to guitar amp mic, nor would Shure Green Bullets have such big followings in the harmonica world - we'd all be tracking with reference mics of some sort. Sure, I've heard people occasionally support their use on acoustics, but the consensus of every engineer/home hobbyist I've ever spoken to is sometimes a bit of coloration is a good thing.
So, as a standard to achieve, audio purity is probably not on the top of anyone's list in a studio environment.
Now, maybe Jeff is just failing to account for the sheer range of abilities you'll find in performers, or assuming a certain level of competence that may or may not be realistic, but give a beginner an electric guitar and plug him into a high gain tube head, and tell him to start rocking out. What are you going to hear? Timing hesitations, bad intonation, bad muting and off notes ringing out, iffy palm muting, probably the occasional bum note too. You name it, it's there.
At this point, does it even MATTER what the room sounds like? Garbage in, garbage out. Add to the "mix," using the phrase very loosely, a similarly bad drummer and bassist, and the whole thing turns into a muddy trainwreck.
Flip the scenario, though - all the musicians are tight as fuck, grooving like a single unit, are perfectly in control of their instruments, and there's nary a timing hesitation or weird resonance to be heard.
Now, imagine it's time to mix - I think I recall Andy Sneap talking about this (someone in the modern metal circuit, certainly), about how it's WAY easier to get instruments to work together in a mix when all their attacks are synching up well and you don't have to take steps to mask them to make everything sound more in synch.
My personal experience has been in line with this - I'm a fairly good guitarist, but only an average-at-best bassist, and I've noticed that when I start with the bass and take a couple extra takes to really make sure I've got the bass groove locked in tightly with the drums as well as I'm able, the low end of my mixes always sounds quite a bit tighter and less sludgy than if I just get the bass over with quickly and move on to the instrument I enjoy more.
It's not that the room doesn't matter in a great recording, but rather that you're not even going to get to the point where it matters unless the guys you're tracking can play tightly.
I'll confess, I barely scanned the thread, because I couldn't wade through all the BS being spewed around. So, a few observations, some of which may have already been raised.
All else equal, barring the occasional "room sound" special effect, it's easier to get a more natural sounding recording in a good room. That said, I think I can speak for all of us when I say that almost none of us sit down and think how they can get the purest, cleanest, most uncolored sound on tape when they're making a recording, or else the SM57 wouldn't be everyone's go-to guitar amp mic, nor would Shure Green Bullets have such big followings in the harmonica world - we'd all be tracking with reference mics of some sort. Sure, I've heard people occasionally support their use on acoustics, but the consensus of every engineer/home hobbyist I've ever spoken to is sometimes a bit of coloration is a good thing.
So, as a standard to achieve, audio purity is probably not on the top of anyone's list in a studio environment.
Now, maybe Jeff is just failing to account for the sheer range of abilities you'll find in performers, or assuming a certain level of competence that may or may not be realistic, but give a beginner an electric guitar and plug him into a high gain tube head, and tell him to start rocking out. What are you going to hear? Timing hesitations, bad intonation, bad muting and off notes ringing out, iffy palm muting, probably the occasional bum note too. You name it, it's there.
At this point, does it even MATTER what the room sounds like? Garbage in, garbage out. Add to the "mix," using the phrase very loosely, a similarly bad drummer and bassist, and the whole thing turns into a muddy trainwreck.
Flip the scenario, though - all the musicians are tight as fuck, grooving like a single unit, are perfectly in control of their instruments, and there's nary a timing hesitation or weird resonance to be heard.
Now, imagine it's time to mix - I think I recall Andy Sneap talking about this (someone in the modern metal circuit, certainly), about how it's WAY easier to get instruments to work together in a mix when all their attacks are synching up well and you don't have to take steps to mask them to make everything sound more in synch.
My personal experience has been in line with this - I'm a fairly good guitarist, but only an average-at-best bassist, and I've noticed that when I start with the bass and take a couple extra takes to really make sure I've got the bass groove locked in tightly with the drums as well as I'm able, the low end of my mixes always sounds quite a bit tighter and less sludgy than if I just get the bass over with quickly and move on to the instrument I enjoy more.
It's not that the room doesn't matter in a great recording, but rather that you're not even going to get to the point where it matters unless the guys you're tracking can play tightly.
Yonce N Mild
Voice of Sanity
I would certainly rather listen to a poor recording of a great performance than a great recording of a poor performance.
That being said if I was to start this hobby from scratch knowing what I know now my first and highest priority would be room treatment and monitoring.
That being said if I was to start this hobby from scratch knowing what I know now my first and highest priority would be room treatment and monitoring.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
If language were liquid, it would be rushing in.......
Jeff 0633 has made a number of very valid points and I'm glad he did. But they're only good points if you start off by accepting the definition of "recording" that he does, which is technically correct and by the book. But in my experience, the musicians that I know and read up on and have done so for 33 or so years don't actually run with that definition. I think it's correct to say that "recording" or "making a recording" is a kind of shorthand for "getting a song down" and like Miroslav points out, has little if anything at all, to do with "capturing sound (or even silence)". Musicians use language this way all the time, using kind of technical terms in much looser, not strict, ways. Recorded in the Daily sketch sometime in June 1969 is a story about Brian Jones 'leaving' the Rolling Stones. When asked why, he is quoted as saying "I no longer see eye to eye with the group over the discs we are cutting". To the best of my knowledge neither Keith Richards, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Jagger nor Jones himself had ever actually 'cut a disc', which was highly specialized work in the days of vinyl. Musicians have frequently referred to their recordings and what they meant were the songs/performances. Not the audio nature of such. I'm sure we can find loads of phrases that get used that aren't technically correct, yet we know what they mean when we hear it. But it never hurts to check exactly what one does mean.
What was interesting is that no one said that the room wasn't important. Well, I can't remember anyone saying it. The argument seemed to centre on it's being the crucial element, above and beyond everything else.
The key phrase here is "knowing what I know now". None of us start anything knowing what we know when we have some experience. I've long found that an interesting phrase because it seems to me to run counter to progression. Maybe you need to come up against room problems in a tangible way in order to progress to the point where you do something that makes a difference that you initially didn't know needed to be made because you couldn't originally hear it.
Jeff 0633 has made a number of very valid points and I'm glad he did. But they're only good points if you start off by accepting the definition of "recording" that he does, which is technically correct and by the book. But in my experience, the musicians that I know and read up on and have done so for 33 or so years don't actually run with that definition. I think it's correct to say that "recording" or "making a recording" is a kind of shorthand for "getting a song down" and like Miroslav points out, has little if anything at all, to do with "capturing sound (or even silence)". Musicians use language this way all the time, using kind of technical terms in much looser, not strict, ways. Recorded in the Daily sketch sometime in June 1969 is a story about Brian Jones 'leaving' the Rolling Stones. When asked why, he is quoted as saying "I no longer see eye to eye with the group over the discs we are cutting". To the best of my knowledge neither Keith Richards, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Jagger nor Jones himself had ever actually 'cut a disc', which was highly specialized work in the days of vinyl. Musicians have frequently referred to their recordings and what they meant were the songs/performances. Not the audio nature of such. I'm sure we can find loads of phrases that get used that aren't technically correct, yet we know what they mean when we hear it. But it never hurts to check exactly what one does mean.
What was interesting is that no one said that the room wasn't important. Well, I can't remember anyone saying it. The argument seemed to centre on it's being the crucial element, above and beyond everything else.
halfred
New member
The quality of the players as well as the quality of the music is the most important factor on the one hand, but the "truer" the sound reproduction, the more apparent that quality will be, and the better effect it will have on the listener.