G
gascap
New member
Light said:
Ouch!......Thanks for the reminder!
I gotta go practice now.
what makes a pro recording sound so much better than a home recording??
Ouch!......Thanks for the reminder!
I gotta go practice now.
dobro
Well-known member
"I've never recorded or produced anything earth-shattering, but I've heard plenty of crappier mixes, even from the pro's, to know that I'm heading down the right road to a good production. One of these days I will produce something worthy of mastering.
Where does all this fit in?"
Well, I think it says this: pro stuff doesn't always sound better than home stuff.
What makes a pro recording sound so so much better than a home recording? Well, the short answer is: great gear used by really good technicians recording pretty capable artists.
But I'll do an Aristotle on it and break it down:
There's what you have: gear, instruments, room, time.
There's what you know how to do: write, play and sing, record, mix, master.
There's what comes for free from beyond all that: talent, inspiration.
There's one more thing: the right time. Some stuff just sounds better because it comes out at the right time. It's talking to people. It touches them.
So, the answer to the question after the Aristotle breakdown is: the pros have access to the above four factors more often than you or me. I mean that - even the parts about inspiration and the right time. If somebody *really* needs to be heard by a lot of people, God gives him a contract with the majors and gets him into a recording studio full of Neumanns. God doesn't fuck around.
Where does all this fit in?"
Well, I think it says this: pro stuff doesn't always sound better than home stuff.
What makes a pro recording sound so so much better than a home recording? Well, the short answer is: great gear used by really good technicians recording pretty capable artists.
But I'll do an Aristotle on it and break it down:
There's what you have: gear, instruments, room, time.
There's what you know how to do: write, play and sing, record, mix, master.
There's what comes for free from beyond all that: talent, inspiration.
There's one more thing: the right time. Some stuff just sounds better because it comes out at the right time. It's talking to people. It touches them.
So, the answer to the question after the Aristotle breakdown is: the pros have access to the above four factors more often than you or me. I mean that - even the parts about inspiration and the right time. If somebody *really* needs to be heard by a lot of people, God gives him a contract with the majors and gets him into a recording studio full of Neumanns. God doesn't fuck around.
rushfan33
New member
When you're talking "pro", you're talking an entirely different ball game. It starts from the musicians and their instuments. Usually they are both top notch! Then.... the engineer and his "instruments are usually top notch..... but that doesn't mean that they are all U87's. That just means that he or she knows from experience what they can and can't do with their tools/instruments. Sometimes and almost all the time, in a Pro situation, there is a team of people using their engineering expertise. I won't get into the recording media because that' too subjective. Then after the recording, many times they will bring in a top notch mixer to do the final mixdown. They will then have it mastered (and I'm not talking Sound Forge) by a dedicated masterer, which also has plenty of years experience. The bottom line is that in a "pro" studio, everything is top notch, and if it isn't the engineer probably knows how to stretch and tweak the gear they do have to its full potential. Signal chain and all that is obviously important but I'm already assuming that a "pro" studio will practice good technicque in that regard.
Thanks,
RF
Thanks,
RF
darrin_h2000
Banned
Then agian that combination you speak off are also responsible for the worst sounding shit too.
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Re: although.....
Creating a good tracking studio is much cheaper than a good mixing studio.
It's all about knowing your limitations and going with your strengths. The Boss's first album was done on a poratstudio BUT he didn't try to do a full band production by bouncing drums and keyboards all over the place until he had a nice sonic mush. He kept it simple with just guitar, vocals and harmonica.
ruebarb said:
Creating a good tracking studio is much cheaper than a good mixing studio.
It's all about knowing your limitations and going with your strengths. The Boss's first album was done on a poratstudio BUT he didn't try to do a full band production by bouncing drums and keyboards all over the place until he had a nice sonic mush. He kept it simple with just guitar, vocals and harmonica.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
Enlightening thread!
One thing I haven't seen metnioned though:
Playing it safe
If you do something a million times in a row, roughly the same way, soon you will be able to stamp it out in a cookie cutter fashion.
Ask yourself, when's the last time you heard something REALLY new on a " pro " record ?
One thing I haven't seen metnioned though:
Playing it safe
If you do something a million times in a row, roughly the same way, soon you will be able to stamp it out in a cookie cutter fashion.
Ask yourself, when's the last time you heard something REALLY new on a " pro " record ?
Cyrokk
Farce of Nature
I think some of you are confusing the term "Pro" with "Sell" and missing the general point of this thread. It's a well known fact that crap-ass sounding albums somehow make it to the music store shelves. This indicates that albums sales have different requirements than whether or not an album was made in a professional recording studio. The old phrase "It's not what you know, it's who you know", coupled with timing, are the only things that require an album to sell. The earliest rap albums produced by Rick Rubin sold hundreds of thousands of copies simply because no dance party was a success without this kind of music. This was before any record company realized rap was a form of music that was here to stay. And if you still are in denial of rap, then take British metal. Some of the best pre-thrash music ever made sold just as many records and these guys were cutting records in garages. Some snobs will question the talent in both genres, but the bottom line is the music got exposed to the right people at the right time.
But to get back into the topic, I think that time and listening go hand in hand as the biggest considerations for professional sounding recordings regardless of where you cut the tracks: Hundreds upon hundreds of hours listening to albums and picking apart the production quality. Hours doing research on the right gear and the best approach to using it for the genre you are interested in. Time spent asking stupid questions. Time spent working and saving money for the gear that fits your needs. Time to RTFM. Actually practicing, rehearsing, arranging, and constantly refining your compositions to give them the utmost impact you are seeking. And doing all of this in a decent pair of monitors receiving a decent signal in a room that captures as close as possible the sounds in your head. Time spent mixing and playing it back on your system, your car system, your grandmother's shower cassette player, your dog's sound system. And time to swallow your damn pride and consult with a mastering engineer for the final touches.
Oh and a little smarts is required too for remembering to fill out the PA copyright forms before you mix..
Cy
But to get back into the topic, I think that time and listening go hand in hand as the biggest considerations for professional sounding recordings regardless of where you cut the tracks: Hundreds upon hundreds of hours listening to albums and picking apart the production quality. Hours doing research on the right gear and the best approach to using it for the genre you are interested in. Time spent asking stupid questions. Time spent working and saving money for the gear that fits your needs. Time to RTFM. Actually practicing, rehearsing, arranging, and constantly refining your compositions to give them the utmost impact you are seeking. And doing all of this in a decent pair of monitors receiving a decent signal in a room that captures as close as possible the sounds in your head. Time spent mixing and playing it back on your system, your car system, your grandmother's shower cassette player, your dog's sound system. And time to swallow your damn pride and consult with a mastering engineer for the final touches.
Oh and a little smarts is required too for remembering to fill out the PA copyright forms before you mix..
Cy
rushfan33
New member
"Pro" to me means just what it's short for.... Professional. That means this is what you do for a living. It's quite possible and probable that many engineers lose track of the word pro....or perhaps it takes on a new meaning for them. If you're at a stage where you're finally making some dough and your mixing is bad ass, it might be safe to quit the dayjob and support yourself and your family. But when you do quit that day job and it starts to get a little slow, You might just sacrifice your mixing quality (not to be confused with your skill) in order to pay the bills. You kind of give in a little to the record companies.
Many people do throw the word "pro" around like it's something you can get at Guitar Center but it don't mean dick unless it's bringing in the money. If you live in a town with a wealth of bands and even though you only have two blackfaced ADATs, tons of them come to you and you can support yourself that way, I would consider him "pro".
On the other hand, if someone goes down and spends their Lotto money on a kajillion dollar (that's a lot!) studio full of slammin gear only to find the studio used a few times a year, that's not "pro". In my opinion, you can't label a studio "pro" by the name brands on the 19" rack faceplates or the little emblem on the 1600 input Neve super deluxe turbo charged console.
That's just how I feel..... I'm really tired right now though so maybe tomorrow I'll reread what I wrote and kick my ass for what I said.
RF
Many people do throw the word "pro" around like it's something you can get at Guitar Center but it don't mean dick unless it's bringing in the money. If you live in a town with a wealth of bands and even though you only have two blackfaced ADATs, tons of them come to you and you can support yourself that way, I would consider him "pro".
On the other hand, if someone goes down and spends their Lotto money on a kajillion dollar (that's a lot!) studio full of slammin gear only to find the studio used a few times a year, that's not "pro". In my opinion, you can't label a studio "pro" by the name brands on the 19" rack faceplates or the little emblem on the 1600 input Neve super deluxe turbo charged console.
That's just how I feel..... I'm really tired right now though so maybe tomorrow I'll reread what I wrote and kick my ass for what I said.
RF
rushfan33
New member
ohhhh......you asked:
I don't know!!
RF
I don't know!!
RF
L
littledog
New member
Anything to do with gear? Probably only a tiny percentage of the reason...
More likely factors (in no particular order):
Skill of the engineer.
Quality of the musicians and music.
Acoustic quality of the recording space.
Great Mastering.
More likely factors (in no particular order):
Skill of the engineer.
Quality of the musicians and music.
Acoustic quality of the recording space.
Great Mastering.
darrin_h2000
Banned
The signal chain from the mic to the monitors that are used to master the recording is of utmost importance, the room plays a huge part as well, the sad fact is that since MTV, being a model first them a musician second is the painful reality of the buisness.
Its like the dancing is rehearsed, the singing can be fixed by technology, and can be Lipsynced live. The major labels no longer sign real musicians.
Its like the dancing is rehearsed, the singing can be fixed by technology, and can be Lipsynced live. The major labels no longer sign real musicians.
J
Jack Hammer
New member
But what about assumptions
This thread is based upon the assumption -actually propositions I suppose - that "pro" recordings are inherently, in and of themselves, as a whole, entirely without execption, better than home recordings. Well, is this actually true? Are there home recordings that are better tham some "pro" recordings? Has a scientifically sound test been done that narrows or at least identifies the factors? It is doubtful. One fact is obvious, more people hear the "pro"recordings than any other.
And, finally, there is the subjective vs. objective standard. For instance, if one likes te song, one is more likely to thing the sounds are "better" than the sounds on a song one does not like. This is NOT A RULE! There are no rules, not in art. Recording music is art. Thus, the standard is always elusive and in question.
Probably the biggest problem with home recordings is the fact that the engineers are trying too hard. After all, a good pre-amp is tranparent. This is also true about an engineer. An engineer that lets the music be what it is, gets out of the way, makes a good, clean, accurate rendition of the music is the best engineer of all. Home recording engineers overuse processors like reverb, EQ, compressors etc. trying to be "great" engineers.
Less is more and the "pros" know this from experience. So the diffierence can be something as simple, or complex as the egos involved. Humility before the music is probably the best attribute an engineer can have. To do honor to the creation and not mess it up with "engineering" is the most important factor of all!
This thread is based upon the assumption -actually propositions I suppose - that "pro" recordings are inherently, in and of themselves, as a whole, entirely without execption, better than home recordings. Well, is this actually true? Are there home recordings that are better tham some "pro" recordings? Has a scientifically sound test been done that narrows or at least identifies the factors? It is doubtful. One fact is obvious, more people hear the "pro"recordings than any other.
And, finally, there is the subjective vs. objective standard. For instance, if one likes te song, one is more likely to thing the sounds are "better" than the sounds on a song one does not like. This is NOT A RULE! There are no rules, not in art. Recording music is art. Thus, the standard is always elusive and in question.
Probably the biggest problem with home recordings is the fact that the engineers are trying too hard. After all, a good pre-amp is tranparent. This is also true about an engineer. An engineer that lets the music be what it is, gets out of the way, makes a good, clean, accurate rendition of the music is the best engineer of all. Home recording engineers overuse processors like reverb, EQ, compressors etc. trying to be "great" engineers.
Less is more and the "pros" know this from experience. So the diffierence can be something as simple, or complex as the egos involved. Humility before the music is probably the best attribute an engineer can have. To do honor to the creation and not mess it up with "engineering" is the most important factor of all!
G
gascap
New member
An interesting thread to be sure! And as usual, I learn much form the dialog here.
The main reason I record (and I assume other home-reccers) is a love of music. This first.
IF money comes from it, that is great and I would be lying if I said that THAT scenario happening alot more is not a dream. Ha!
Having said that, I know guys with studios in their homes that are absolutely tweaked with gear. Where the moolah comes from, I haven't a clue (it sure ISN'T from music production sales or space rental therein). With these examples of folks I know, I believe the love of music is lost, or at the very least incredibly obscured and distorted - due to a determination to be 'pro', and keep ahead of the new gear curve.
What makes a pro recording sound better? I think the angles have all been covered nicely with earlier posts (I like littledog's list.) Obviously basic tools are required (monitors, mics, etc...) But for me if the MUSIC/musician is good then everything else's role becomes much easier to see/hear, and a wonderful production will happen.
So then, do 'pro-sounding' recordings result from music that some deem as half-baked in any form or production? I think we all know the answer to that one!(turns on radio) But, as for me, I like to think that I will always make the music aspect the top priority. I also like to think then, that such recordings will sound as good as anything else.
Close your eyes, trust your ears and your gut.
Thanks again to all for another enligtening read.
The main reason I record (and I assume other home-reccers) is a love of music. This first.
IF money comes from it, that is great and I would be lying if I said that THAT scenario happening alot more is not a dream. Ha!
Having said that, I know guys with studios in their homes that are absolutely tweaked with gear. Where the moolah comes from, I haven't a clue (it sure ISN'T from music production sales or space rental therein). With these examples of folks I know, I believe the love of music is lost, or at the very least incredibly obscured and distorted - due to a determination to be 'pro', and keep ahead of the new gear curve.
What makes a pro recording sound better? I think the angles have all been covered nicely with earlier posts (I like littledog's list.) Obviously basic tools are required (monitors, mics, etc...) But for me if the MUSIC/musician is good then everything else's role becomes much easier to see/hear, and a wonderful production will happen.
So then, do 'pro-sounding' recordings result from music that some deem as half-baked in any form or production? I think we all know the answer to that one!(turns on radio) But, as for me, I like to think that I will always make the music aspect the top priority. I also like to think then, that such recordings will sound as good as anything else.
Close your eyes, trust your ears and your gut.
Thanks again to all for another enligtening read.
H
Herman P Willis
New member
I agree, this is a terrific thread. I would love to see Harvey Gerst & sonusman weigh in, particularly because they both talk about how to get good results with cheap gear.
It seems appropriate to see the White Stripes mentioned. I agree that their albums are poorly recorded by normal standards, but they do get a vibe across. Despite the tremendous number of individual flaws you can hear if you listen for them, the overall performance is successfully communicated. I've seen 'em live. They really sound like that. Their instruments are not very high-quality, and their playing is very rough, but they generate a certain primal force. They draw a lot of their inspiration from scratchy old blues 78's, so I don't suppose they would care if they heard a lot of criticism for their less-than-pristine sound.
It seems appropriate to see the White Stripes mentioned. I agree that their albums are poorly recorded by normal standards, but they do get a vibe across. Despite the tremendous number of individual flaws you can hear if you listen for them, the overall performance is successfully communicated. I've seen 'em live. They really sound like that. Their instruments are not very high-quality, and their playing is very rough, but they generate a certain primal force. They draw a lot of their inspiration from scratchy old blues 78's, so I don't suppose they would care if they heard a lot of criticism for their less-than-pristine sound.
W
webstop
New member
Very good subject.
I've always wondered: what if I give wav files of each track in a song to a PRO to mix and master? How different (better) would the result be from what I am getting?
Maybe in future I will have budget for such an experiment... Until then, this question rises each and every time I remix in pursuit for better sound...
All my song are instrumental with Roland sound sources connected directly into Delta 1010 souncard. So there are no issues of microphones, room accoustics, preamps, noise and all that...
Still, in the end it sounds rather nice, but NO PRO.
Why?
I've always wondered: what if I give wav files of each track in a song to a PRO to mix and master? How different (better) would the result be from what I am getting?
Maybe in future I will have budget for such an experiment... Until then, this question rises each and every time I remix in pursuit for better sound...
All my song are instrumental with Roland sound sources connected directly into Delta 1010 souncard. So there are no issues of microphones, room accoustics, preamps, noise and all that...
Still, in the end it sounds rather nice, but NO PRO.
Why?
H
Henri Devill
New member
And the amount/quality of pre production..details and planing your approch..And for the experienced band/recordist you may need less..but you should do some...just my opinionlittledog said:
Don
M
MikeA
New member
What makes it happen?
Great thread!
A good mixer will tell you that well recorded tracks almost mix themselves. A good recording engineer will tell you that a song performed by exceptional musicians who know how to handle their instruments will be infinitely easier to track than the same song played by the pimply faced kids from the neighborhood. And, the pro musicians will tell you that a good song almost plays itself.
I used to work with a pro engineer. The guy’s been making records since the mid seventies. Lived the endless hours in the studio and worked with some really big names. He can also really get some sounds. He sings, plays drums and guitar and can write. One night we were doing vocals. I was manning the board and tape machine, he was basically producing the female vocalist. We did what must have been 30 takes of this one line. I thought the 3rd one was great but he kept pushing the vocalist. Suddenly, (or finally if you wish) she sang it and it was obvious that THAT was THE take. I had been willing to take the 3rd attempt but he knew that if he dug long enough he would find a gem.
Another time (and this was just after I started working with him), we were mixing to 2 track analog. The tune was a hard driving rock thing and after about 6 ½ hours we had a good mix going. It was late, I had worked all day at my day gig and was tired. I thought we were finished but he rewound the 24 track til just before the power drum fill leaving the bridge. He pushed the faders up on the drums and played it a couple of times until he got them where he wanted them. Then he put the 2 track into record. As soon as the fill was over he stopped the 2 track. I was going “What is he doing?” He then proceeded to edit the raised level drum fill into its proper place on the 2 track master. I was amazed. First of all it was the first time I had seen an edit like that done but more importantly, making that one change gave the last verse and the out choruses just the power needed to keep the intensity up and really helped the presentation of the song.
So which is it? A great song, great musicians/vocalists, a great engineer, a great producer, a great room, a great array of gear? Or is it just magic that happens at a particular time and place with a particular group of people irregardless of the gear or room?
Oh, Oh, OH it’s Magic. Ya know...
Great thread!
A good mixer will tell you that well recorded tracks almost mix themselves. A good recording engineer will tell you that a song performed by exceptional musicians who know how to handle their instruments will be infinitely easier to track than the same song played by the pimply faced kids from the neighborhood. And, the pro musicians will tell you that a good song almost plays itself.
I used to work with a pro engineer. The guy’s been making records since the mid seventies. Lived the endless hours in the studio and worked with some really big names. He can also really get some sounds. He sings, plays drums and guitar and can write. One night we were doing vocals. I was manning the board and tape machine, he was basically producing the female vocalist. We did what must have been 30 takes of this one line. I thought the 3rd one was great but he kept pushing the vocalist. Suddenly, (or finally if you wish) she sang it and it was obvious that THAT was THE take. I had been willing to take the 3rd attempt but he knew that if he dug long enough he would find a gem.
Another time (and this was just after I started working with him), we were mixing to 2 track analog. The tune was a hard driving rock thing and after about 6 ½ hours we had a good mix going. It was late, I had worked all day at my day gig and was tired. I thought we were finished but he rewound the 24 track til just before the power drum fill leaving the bridge. He pushed the faders up on the drums and played it a couple of times until he got them where he wanted them. Then he put the 2 track into record. As soon as the fill was over he stopped the 2 track. I was going “What is he doing?” He then proceeded to edit the raised level drum fill into its proper place on the 2 track master. I was amazed. First of all it was the first time I had seen an edit like that done but more importantly, making that one change gave the last verse and the out choruses just the power needed to keep the intensity up and really helped the presentation of the song.
So which is it? A great song, great musicians/vocalists, a great engineer, a great producer, a great room, a great array of gear? Or is it just magic that happens at a particular time and place with a particular group of people irregardless of the gear or room?
Oh, Oh, OH it’s Magic. Ya know...
G
gascap
New member
webstop said:
Well, actually I had a little taste of such a case recently.
A friend of mine is an engineer at a 'pro' studio. They had a client who was putting together an album of sorts and one of the tunes needed fiddle work. He gave me the cd of the rough mix of the current tracks to practice with. Once I came up with the line, I couldn't help myself and flew the mix into Sonar, and began making hay.
The long and short of it was that my friend and the client were thrilled with the part AND the fact that it was ready to go. He imported the file into Pro Tools and VOILA! the session just got a little shorter for them. I couldn't help feeling a little geeked about it.
Did my track sound AS good as if it were recorded there? Strictly A B'd through their high-dollar stuff, maybe not, BUT I have a good condenser mic, know how to record my axe, and the track setting in with the other tracks, sounded like it was recorded on site. (and I'm not all togther sure it WOULD have sounded any worse if it were A B'd)
I know this isn't the test to end all tests, BUT it was perhaps a little taste of the answer to your question.
NOW, if my friend would only outsource all such tracking....HA!
Krakit
Rzzzzz!
Recording Space
Add my vote with the people that say a good room makes the difference. Of course this applies mostly to my own case, your mileage may vary.
I was a professional engineer. The recordings that I made in real studios sound better than my home projects mostly because of the recording spaces.
It's never been a better time to record direct (thanks to amp modelers and so on), but vocals are still a problem. I don't have an isolation booth at home and my current recording environment is a bit "spanky". I find that this contributes the most in terms of making my recordings amaturish than anything else.
Sure, better microphones would help a lot (I've always been something of a cheapskate in this department never spending more than $100 on a mic), but I think that I make up for microphone quality with ingenuity (placement and baffle techniques). In my home recording experience, if you buy microphones in pairs and buy them with specific recording applications in mind (and KNOW that they work well for your plans) you'll do well. I'm not going to prefess that "a condenser is a condenser is a condenser", but with the right tweaking you can squeeze good response from el cheapo mics. It just takes much more effort and sometimes you must abort because the microphone you want to use simply will not perform in the context you want to use it in.
As for what I record on, I find that my digital workstation (even if it is only a Fostex FD4) yeilds just as true a recording as any 2" tape I've shredded in studio. Again, creativity and ingenuity helps a great deal. I remind myself often that the Beatles' SGT. Pepper album was recorded on four tracks. The fact that I can bounce tracks indefinately without degradation helps tremendously. Again, patience is a huge factor. Recording real drums is the greatest obstacle for a four track situation. It's not impossible, but sacrificies need to be made. The only way to avoid mixing drums live and sending them to two tracks is to get a recorder capable of more than four tracks. 8 track is a minimum by today's standards, but 16 is far more comfortable. I don't have room for a drum kit even if one were at my disposal. Since I use a drum machine I don't have to worry too much about the drum tracks, but if I had a real drummer, and he had an electronic kit (like a Roland), I could mix his kit easily before the recorder's first two tracks. Is control over snare or kick (or other kit peice) alone very important? Of course it is if you want to save many hours of mixdown (and recording) time, but this is a luxery that you give up when you're on a budget.
You must have a stable of outboard effects if you ever wish to do things that aren't straight ahead. I don't recommend using stomp boxes connected to your effects sends as they tend to be noisy (unless that is desirable).
Can you get away with just a reverb unit and nothing else?
I have. Just don't expect to do anything "fancy" that way. Depending on the music you want to make you should be able to do without outboard effects, some genres demand effects so you'll need to get them. If you want to avoid amaturish recordings, you'll "season" with effects and not "feature" them.
Compression is a HUGE time saver, but it isn't an absolute necessity. With patience (and by this I mean rerecording whole flawless tracks because the levels weren't consistant) you can do without a compressor. On the whole, I'd rather have a compressor in my chain than not, but I didn't always have one and I got by. Like most recording gear, patience, creativity and a willingness to do things over can make up for a lot of missing or cheap gear. When you've made enough recordings with your own gear, you learn how hot to make your recording levels and how to position mics (and most importantly how to control your dynamics in performance) so that you can live without compression.
I believe that outside of good recording space (which is nye impossible to fake when you don't have it) the only real difference between a home recording project and a pro studio recording project is analogous to the difference between driving from NY to LA and flying there. The airplane gets you there fast and comfortably. When you drive it takes longer and you aren't anywhere near as comfortable, but as long as your car is up to the task (and you don't crash) you'll end up at the same destination. Just took you longer and far more effort, but you got there.
Anyone ever built an isolation helmet?
Carl
Add my vote with the people that say a good room makes the difference. Of course this applies mostly to my own case, your mileage may vary.
I was a professional engineer. The recordings that I made in real studios sound better than my home projects mostly because of the recording spaces.
It's never been a better time to record direct (thanks to amp modelers and so on), but vocals are still a problem. I don't have an isolation booth at home and my current recording environment is a bit "spanky". I find that this contributes the most in terms of making my recordings amaturish than anything else.
Sure, better microphones would help a lot (I've always been something of a cheapskate in this department never spending more than $100 on a mic), but I think that I make up for microphone quality with ingenuity (placement and baffle techniques). In my home recording experience, if you buy microphones in pairs and buy them with specific recording applications in mind (and KNOW that they work well for your plans) you'll do well. I'm not going to prefess that "a condenser is a condenser is a condenser", but with the right tweaking you can squeeze good response from el cheapo mics. It just takes much more effort and sometimes you must abort because the microphone you want to use simply will not perform in the context you want to use it in.
As for what I record on, I find that my digital workstation (even if it is only a Fostex FD4) yeilds just as true a recording as any 2" tape I've shredded in studio. Again, creativity and ingenuity helps a great deal. I remind myself often that the Beatles' SGT. Pepper album was recorded on four tracks. The fact that I can bounce tracks indefinately without degradation helps tremendously. Again, patience is a huge factor. Recording real drums is the greatest obstacle for a four track situation. It's not impossible, but sacrificies need to be made. The only way to avoid mixing drums live and sending them to two tracks is to get a recorder capable of more than four tracks. 8 track is a minimum by today's standards, but 16 is far more comfortable. I don't have room for a drum kit even if one were at my disposal. Since I use a drum machine I don't have to worry too much about the drum tracks, but if I had a real drummer, and he had an electronic kit (like a Roland), I could mix his kit easily before the recorder's first two tracks. Is control over snare or kick (or other kit peice) alone very important? Of course it is if you want to save many hours of mixdown (and recording) time, but this is a luxery that you give up when you're on a budget.
You must have a stable of outboard effects if you ever wish to do things that aren't straight ahead. I don't recommend using stomp boxes connected to your effects sends as they tend to be noisy (unless that is desirable).
Can you get away with just a reverb unit and nothing else?
I have. Just don't expect to do anything "fancy" that way. Depending on the music you want to make you should be able to do without outboard effects, some genres demand effects so you'll need to get them. If you want to avoid amaturish recordings, you'll "season" with effects and not "feature" them.
Compression is a HUGE time saver, but it isn't an absolute necessity. With patience (and by this I mean rerecording whole flawless tracks because the levels weren't consistant) you can do without a compressor. On the whole, I'd rather have a compressor in my chain than not, but I didn't always have one and I got by. Like most recording gear, patience, creativity and a willingness to do things over can make up for a lot of missing or cheap gear. When you've made enough recordings with your own gear, you learn how hot to make your recording levels and how to position mics (and most importantly how to control your dynamics in performance) so that you can live without compression.
I believe that outside of good recording space (which is nye impossible to fake when you don't have it) the only real difference between a home recording project and a pro studio recording project is analogous to the difference between driving from NY to LA and flying there. The airplane gets you there fast and comfortably. When you drive it takes longer and you aren't anywhere near as comfortable, but as long as your car is up to the task (and you don't crash) you'll end up at the same destination. Just took you longer and far more effort, but you got there.
Anyone ever built an isolation helmet?
Carl
darrin_h2000
Banned
Gascap
I have had the pleasure of hearing your stuff and I am impressed with the work you did for us at my meager little studio.
Ill bet if you shared how you can perform strings to the tracks and import them in a wave file to be uploaded. We would all be better off.
And if anyone needs string arrangements for thier stuff I highly recccomend contacting him.
I have had the pleasure of hearing your stuff and I am impressed with the work you did for us at my meager little studio.
Ill bet if you shared how you can perform strings to the tracks and import them in a wave file to be uploaded. We would all be better off.
And if anyone needs string arrangements for thier stuff I highly recccomend contacting him.