Whats the REAL difference?
- Thread starter JPlush76
- Start date
Good sounding rooms. Broad selection of good mics. Nice mixer with good preamps. The rooms probably being the main thing that differs between homewreckers and pro studios. The engineer's knowledge and experience is another important ingredient in the "pro" sound as well.
"Pro" quality or close to it is easier to achieve if you do mainstream eletronic music. Then you can pretty much do it all in software nowadays (Reason).
"Pro" quality or close to it is easier to achieve if you do mainstream eletronic music. Then you can pretty much do it all in software nowadays (Reason).
CyanJaguar
New member
the difference is that mixes from a pro room usually sound good right from the tracking stage.
THe homereccer has to fight to get a big sound, and a WOW mix is more the exception than the norm
THe homereccer has to fight to get a big sound, and a WOW mix is more the exception than the norm
To me, the engineer's experience and good ears are the most important factor. The good engineers I've worked with can get a great sounding product with just about any reasonable gear; they own the good equipment to wow customers and to make their life easier. Also, the better engineers are making more money at their craft and can afford the nicer gear so in some respects its a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Also, the person acting as the producer has an enormous role- many musicians simply don't have an artistic vision that includes things beyond their own individual performance.
Also, the person acting as the producer has an enormous role- many musicians simply don't have an artistic vision that includes things beyond their own individual performance.
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
The main trick is don't buy entry level gear. There is no such thing in the 'Pro' realm.
Buy stuff like Manley, API, Avalon, etc. If it costs less than $500 and it has more than 3 knobs it's probably not a pro piece of gear
(RNC Excluded)I've been looking into a good preamp setup and it looks like API may be the best bang for the buck. You can buy a $600 rackmount with power supply and start buying used preamp modules for $500 each used and EQ modules starting at around $700 used. When you compare that to a $2000 mono Avalon it's a pretty reasonable setup.
The trick to any quality recording is to get a great signal from the start and dont fuck it up in the mix and mastering. Start with a good mic, pre and DAC and that is half the battle won.
I'm assuming the engineer and performer know what they are doing because they are the most important part.
I have to respectfully disagree on this one.
I believe the advent of digital recording, and the role computers play in the scheme of things has really opened things up.
To get professional-quality, you do not need to reserve time at the lush, expensive studios. Expensive Pro Tools setups are mearly faster-running, more flexible versions of what most people have available on their home computers. A hit record that actually went #1 in the U.K. called "Your Woman" was recorded on a 4-track cassette multitrack recorder by a guy in his bedroom. Hell, take a listen to some of Erland's stuff in the MP3 mixing clinic and tell me you don't find his music even more charming given it's sheer simplicity. And don't even get me started on Macle. His stuff sounds better than half of the poo-poo I hear on the radio today.
The idea of having to have an expensive microphone is pretty much a joke. Many a hit record has been produced with the Shure SM7 as the main vocal mic (Harvey even put it on his all-time best microphones regardless of price list in the top 10). The sm57 has been used on occasion, while I hear Bono has a fondness for the beta 58. None of these mics even break the $400 barrier. The SM57 was and still is probably one of the most used microphones at $70, and can probably be heard on the snare drums and guitar cabs of most any hit record you listen to.
Well then you gotta have those expensive preamps. All the hit records have either Neve or API's for sure, right?
Not always. John Cougar Melencamp supposedly used Joemeek VC1Q's all over one of his latest efforts, as have the Black Crowes. The Grace Design is quickly gaining a reputation as being close to a world-class preamp. If you have the skills and patience, you can even build your own Neve-alike from a bunch of scrap parts for fairly cheap.
How about compressors? The RNC from FMR Audio is quickly gaining ground as a workhorse compressor in some of the top studios (Street price = $175). I was reading an article about the band Garbage . . . and among their gear list was a Joemeek 2-channel compressor they like to use during mixdow.
This on top of Butch Vigg's genuine fondness for using Waves' software plugins for much of their effects.
I see the landscape for the modern recording setup taking a similar path that publishing has in the past 20 years. At one point, if you wanted a brochure, annual report or other similar graphical piece printed, you had to go to a design shop. Since then, programs like Pagemaker and Quark Express have brought desktop puplishing within reach of anyone with a Macintosh and a will to learn the craft.
Does that mean the death of the modern recording studio? Absolutely not. It will always have it's place for certain applications. But I see it becoming much more of a tool for the skilled engineer, rather than an absolute necessity to get professional-level recordings.
I believe the advent of digital recording, and the role computers play in the scheme of things has really opened things up.
To get professional-quality, you do not need to reserve time at the lush, expensive studios. Expensive Pro Tools setups are mearly faster-running, more flexible versions of what most people have available on their home computers. A hit record that actually went #1 in the U.K. called "Your Woman" was recorded on a 4-track cassette multitrack recorder by a guy in his bedroom. Hell, take a listen to some of Erland's stuff in the MP3 mixing clinic and tell me you don't find his music even more charming given it's sheer simplicity. And don't even get me started on Macle. His stuff sounds better than half of the poo-poo I hear on the radio today.
The idea of having to have an expensive microphone is pretty much a joke. Many a hit record has been produced with the Shure SM7 as the main vocal mic (Harvey even put it on his all-time best microphones regardless of price list in the top 10). The sm57 has been used on occasion, while I hear Bono has a fondness for the beta 58. None of these mics even break the $400 barrier. The SM57 was and still is probably one of the most used microphones at $70, and can probably be heard on the snare drums and guitar cabs of most any hit record you listen to.
Well then you gotta have those expensive preamps. All the hit records have either Neve or API's for sure, right?
Not always. John Cougar Melencamp supposedly used Joemeek VC1Q's all over one of his latest efforts, as have the Black Crowes. The Grace Design is quickly gaining a reputation as being close to a world-class preamp. If you have the skills and patience, you can even build your own Neve-alike from a bunch of scrap parts for fairly cheap.
How about compressors? The RNC from FMR Audio is quickly gaining ground as a workhorse compressor in some of the top studios (Street price = $175). I was reading an article about the band Garbage . . . and among their gear list was a Joemeek 2-channel compressor they like to use during mixdow.
This on top of Butch Vigg's genuine fondness for using Waves' software plugins for much of their effects.
I see the landscape for the modern recording setup taking a similar path that publishing has in the past 20 years. At one point, if you wanted a brochure, annual report or other similar graphical piece printed, you had to go to a design shop. Since then, programs like Pagemaker and Quark Express have brought desktop puplishing within reach of anyone with a Macintosh and a will to learn the craft.
Does that mean the death of the modern recording studio? Absolutely not. It will always have it's place for certain applications. But I see it becoming much more of a tool for the skilled engineer, rather than an absolute necessity to get professional-level recordings.
I hope no one takes this the wrong way here.
Just because a skilled mechanic can replace an engine in the comforts of his own driveway doesn't mean he is better off doing it there than in a well-equiped (professional) garage with all the hi-tech equipment and tools.
And it certainly doesn't imply that any Joe Schmoe should attempt to replace his engine in his spare time, nor does it imply that I can become a skilled graphic designer just because I picked up a copy of Quark Express
Just because a skilled mechanic can replace an engine in the comforts of his own driveway doesn't mean he is better off doing it there than in a well-equiped (professional) garage with all the hi-tech equipment and tools.
And it certainly doesn't imply that any Joe Schmoe should attempt to replace his engine in his spare time, nor does it imply that I can become a skilled graphic designer just because I picked up a copy of Quark Express
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Chess, I agree that good results can be obtained with lesser expensive gear but not with a $300 signal chain for the entire project. The question isn't "Can I make great music with cheap gear?" The question is "What is the REAL difference?"
Bono used a 58 through a $2000 Manley and then a $1500 Distressor to 2" tape. They also used a 58 for the drum OH oddly enough but they used a U47 on the kick. John Cougar may have used a Meek for vocals but they surely didn't use the meek for all the other stuff. You have to look at the ENTIRE production and not just pick a few cheap items they used and say "Thats how the pro's did it."
In the music and film industry everone always points to the low budget champions to say "Hey, I can do that with my gear". But don't forget nobody point to those projects as good examples of engineering. They are flukes based on catchy tunes and a lot of luck.
How many of these breakthrough artists use crappy gear on their second album?
Bono used a 58 through a $2000 Manley and then a $1500 Distressor to 2" tape. They also used a 58 for the drum OH oddly enough but they used a U47 on the kick. John Cougar may have used a Meek for vocals but they surely didn't use the meek for all the other stuff. You have to look at the ENTIRE production and not just pick a few cheap items they used and say "Thats how the pro's did it."
In the music and film industry everone always points to the low budget champions to say "Hey, I can do that with my gear". But don't forget nobody point to those projects as good examples of engineering. They are flukes based on catchy tunes and a lot of luck.
How many of these breakthrough artists use crappy gear on their second album?
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
I absolutely have to agree with Chessrock......I guess it comes from being a geezer but the stuff you can get for just a few thousand dollars now is able to do things that 25 years ago would have cost $100,000. It wasn't that long ago that 8-tracks were cutting edge and now with 'puter based recording....the sky's the limit. There are tons of cheap mics that provide good sound and, of course, the venerable SM-57 is still around and dirt cheap. And the recording quality of a good hard-drive recorder rivals that of the best reel to reel machines of the past. There are those of us that still prefer analog and I'm one of them, but I can't deny the accuracy of today's machines. Basically if you can't do a first class recording with today's better home gear then you can't do one.
And while it's true that the typical studio room is bigger and better laid out than a typical homerecer's, there's no reason why you couldn't do a first rate room in a home if you decided that you wanted to dedicate a part of your house for that purpose. Put time and thought and a little bit of money towards it and I'm convinced that a talented engineer can make stuff as good as the pros and that's freaking them out too. I have friends that are studio owners and they tell me that buisiness is way down and they've had to reduce rates to keep up. I'm not saying that's good....but for those of us who can't afford big money studio time it sure is.
And while it's true that the typical studio room is bigger and better laid out than a typical homerecer's, there's no reason why you couldn't do a first rate room in a home if you decided that you wanted to dedicate a part of your house for that purpose. Put time and thought and a little bit of money towards it and I'm convinced that a talented engineer can make stuff as good as the pros and that's freaking them out too. I have friends that are studio owners and they tell me that buisiness is way down and they've had to reduce rates to keep up. I'm not saying that's good....but for those of us who can't afford big money studio time it sure is.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
It really isn't about the gear at all... poor gear just makes the job more (sometimes, MUCH MORE) difficult.......
It is ALL about the ears and the experience of the engineer..............
It is ALL about the ears and the experience of the engineer..............
mixmkr
we don't need rest!!
Blue Bear Sound said:
that's it in a nutshell. no ifs, ands, or buts
don't you think experienced engineers can get good sounds out of their home rigs too...(which many certainly have) ?? ...of course they can.
additionally...
in general, top end studios draw top end staff..which hopefully draw top end clientel.
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree completely!
Oh, wait...this isn't the visitor forum...
With stuff availible today you CAN get really good sound. The REAL difference, then, is what Bruce mentioned- the skills of the person using it.
~Count Dooku voice~
"It is obvious that this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of the gear..."
~sound of amps coming on, speakers popping, and computers firing up~
"...but by our skills at the mixing desk."
Chris
Oh, wait...this isn't the visitor forum...
With stuff availible today you CAN get really good sound. The REAL difference, then, is what Bruce mentioned- the skills of the person using it.
~Count Dooku voice~
"It is obvious that this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of the gear..."
~sound of amps coming on, speakers popping, and computers firing up~
"...but by our skills at the mixing desk."
Chris
CyanJaguar
New member
Blue Bear Sound said:
with all due respect, and I might grow to find out that I am wrong, but I totally disagree with that statement.
I dont hear many good sounding commercial Cds available. I might hear one outstanding production in twenty Commercially available CDs. The engineers who made those outstanding records cannot achieve that level of proffesionalism with mediocre gear.
How would the greatest engineer in the world take the nervous ringing out of a cheap chinese mic, especially if he is using a dead sounding preamp and a plain sounding compressor, going into some cheapo converters?
not possible. I dont think its magic. Just like in any other proffession, there is a correlation between the quality of the gear and the quality of the output.
And from my limited experience, I have noticed quantifiable improvements with ugrades in gear.
participant
New member
just a quick weigh in...
for the flipside of what chessrock is describing...
...have a friend in an up and coming acoustic rock band (the drummer! ew!). They sound pretty good live, and their vocalist is terrific. Shelled out $5 for their demo EP to support him and his band (a pittance, should have bought 30!
With all due respect to the engineer, this stuff sounded like trash. Vocalist was WAY too loud, no de-essing, backing vocals were sung (by another band member) very sharp and sibilant, drums sounded like they were wrapped in cotton, and the bass was only there from about 500 Hz and up. No low end. Very obvious bad tracking, and mix.
I asked my drummer friend casually if he had the original tracks, and offered to re-mix them for free. He said a place called "South Park Studios" recorded them on a great set-up... 128 track Pro Tools rig.
Yeah, he never stated what mics were used, preamps, or whatever... but I gotta feeling if I'd have tracked them in Cubase, I could have done a better job. (just IMO)
For another vote in mixmkr, Blue Bear, and chess' direction, check out VOXVENDOR's new tune in the mixing clinic. He did that with digi001, a glyph drive, a POD 6, and an SM57 as the only listed mic. Mixed on NS-10s no less! That damn thing sounds better than many commercial CDs!
Chad
for the flipside of what chessrock is describing...
...have a friend in an up and coming acoustic rock band (the drummer! ew!). They sound pretty good live, and their vocalist is terrific. Shelled out $5 for their demo EP to support him and his band (a pittance, should have bought 30!
With all due respect to the engineer, this stuff sounded like trash. Vocalist was WAY too loud, no de-essing, backing vocals were sung (by another band member) very sharp and sibilant, drums sounded like they were wrapped in cotton, and the bass was only there from about 500 Hz and up. No low end. Very obvious bad tracking, and mix.
I asked my drummer friend casually if he had the original tracks, and offered to re-mix them for free. He said a place called "South Park Studios" recorded them on a great set-up... 128 track Pro Tools rig.
Yeah, he never stated what mics were used, preamps, or whatever... but I gotta feeling if I'd have tracked them in Cubase, I could have done a better job. (just IMO
)For another vote in mixmkr, Blue Bear, and chess' direction, check out VOXVENDOR's new tune in the mixing clinic. He did that with digi001, a glyph drive, a POD 6, and an SM57 as the only listed mic. Mixed on NS-10s no less! That damn thing sounds better than many commercial CDs!
Chad
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
I'm not trying to rag on home recording or the equipment. Of course a good engineer will get the best possible sound of whatever gear he has. The better the gear the higher the possible quality.
You would be a fool to say that the gear doesn't matter. The best equipment is no guarantee of a good recording but you will always be limited by your equipment to some degree. That is just a simple matter of physics. The better the gear the fewer the limitations.
You would be a fool to say that the gear doesn't matter. The best equipment is no guarantee of a good recording but you will always be limited by your equipment to some degree. That is just a simple matter of physics. The better the gear the fewer the limitations.
I'm with Tex on this one. It's a little too easy to get simplistic with this discussion. There's plenty of examples of people all over this board posting: "my buddy went to a $500,000 studio and his demo sounded like crap. Then we redid everything on my Fostex 4-track cassette and it sounded 1000% better!"
The problem with anecdotal evidence is we don't really know all the details. Was it really $500,000, (most Pro Tools places aren't) and if so, how much of that gear was being used by someone who knew how to use it? No one would argue that you can get incredibly crappy results from good gear, and visa versa. As has been emphasized, the gear is ultimately only as good as the engineer.
I have a "pro" studio. It is Pro Tools based. Maybe i'm one of the "crappy" places you are talking about. But you would be grossly exagerrating if you said I was $500,000 worth of studio. Maybe $80-90,000 would be more accurate.
The point is - I know the difference between the level of quality and service I provide at my price point and the "real" $500,000 studios - the selection of microphones, preamps, and outboard gear, the quality of the mixing boards, cabling, instruments and musicians, and most of all - ACOUSTICS.
I think part of the problem is we tend to get a little limited in terms of the scope of music we are considering. Sure we have a shot at making a great sounding recording of a garage band - because we all have garages. But how many of us really think we could compete with Sony Classical if we had to do a Bartok String Quartet?
But even if we limit the discussion to rock/pop, the sound of albums like Nirvana's Nevermind are not so easy to get in a 10' by 12' bedroom with an 8' ceiling. I'm not saying impossible - there's a ton of really impressive bedroom recordings out there - just much more difficult.
The ability to record good or even great sounding music on a budget that is within everyone's reach is the wonderful result of the economic revolution in recording gear. But it is a little egotistical to think that armed with a few $100-$300 chinese microphones, a PC and soundcard, some software, and a Joe Meek channel strip that we are now on even a close to equal footing with the top studios in Nashville, L.A., or New York. If it were true, no one would be using them anymore.
The problem with anecdotal evidence is we don't really know all the details. Was it really $500,000, (most Pro Tools places aren't) and if so, how much of that gear was being used by someone who knew how to use it? No one would argue that you can get incredibly crappy results from good gear, and visa versa. As has been emphasized, the gear is ultimately only as good as the engineer.
I have a "pro" studio. It is Pro Tools based. Maybe i'm one of the "crappy" places you are talking about. But you would be grossly exagerrating if you said I was $500,000 worth of studio. Maybe $80-90,000 would be more accurate.
The point is - I know the difference between the level of quality and service I provide at my price point and the "real" $500,000 studios - the selection of microphones, preamps, and outboard gear, the quality of the mixing boards, cabling, instruments and musicians, and most of all - ACOUSTICS.
I think part of the problem is we tend to get a little limited in terms of the scope of music we are considering. Sure we have a shot at making a great sounding recording of a garage band - because we all have garages. But how many of us really think we could compete with Sony Classical if we had to do a Bartok String Quartet?
But even if we limit the discussion to rock/pop, the sound of albums like Nirvana's Nevermind are not so easy to get in a 10' by 12' bedroom with an 8' ceiling. I'm not saying impossible - there's a ton of really impressive bedroom recordings out there - just much more difficult.
The ability to record good or even great sounding music on a budget that is within everyone's reach is the wonderful result of the economic revolution in recording gear. But it is a little egotistical to think that armed with a few $100-$300 chinese microphones, a PC and soundcard, some software, and a Joe Meek channel strip that we are now on even a close to equal footing with the top studios in Nashville, L.A., or New York. If it were true, no one would be using them anymore.
participant
New member
I'm with ya, littledog. And never wanted to insinuate that the 128-track PT studio was crappy... it was more in the direction of the engineer... and his "abilities"
Also don't think anyone is saying that the high-end gear will always produce crap The OP seemed to be asking what was a resonable starting point to make good recordings. The room stuff is right on; IMO you also need a couple of good pre-amps, compressors, and mics. What could produce satisfactory stuff, given the right knowledge? That question may be unanswerable From here, it's all opinion. In that light, Presonus makes good entry level pre-amps. Check out the microphone forum form more info on mics.
Work on your musicianship. But start with the room
Chad
Also don't think anyone is saying that the high-end gear will always produce crap
The OP seemed to be asking what was a resonable starting point to make good recordings. The room stuff is right on; IMO you also need a couple of good pre-amps, compressors, and mics. What could produce satisfactory stuff, given the right knowledge? That question may be unanswerable From here, it's all opinion. In that light, Presonus makes good entry level pre-amps. Check out the microphone forum form more info on mics.Work on your musicianship. But start with the room
Chad
mixmkr
we don't need rest!!
but...in the scope of things, 90 grand isn't THAT much ...really, for a home studio. Sure, it is A LOT of pocket change, but you could easily have half that in instruments....especially with a good piano. I posted a thread in the cave about 'expensive' home studios, but didn't get many bites.
I think it is very possible to have a VERY nice setup for half that, nowadays....and still consider it a home studio...and obtain professional results. That is more the angle I am coming from.
Admittedly, the Mackie 1202 into the Delta 1010, mixed with Cooledit....recording Bartok would be tough...and a little 'bare bones' too, on the equipment side.
But, I think a GOOD mic, pre, into your PC can yield some killer results. Why wouldn't it....(if you got your ears on)? and what's that cost...couple grand?? Mix in the computer w/ Waves, etc.. It's all there... at least in my head it is.
oh yeah...throw in some extra for converters, to keep it nice
I think it is very possible to have a VERY nice setup for half that, nowadays....and still consider it a home studio...and obtain professional results. That is more the angle I am coming from.
Admittedly, the Mackie 1202 into the Delta 1010, mixed with Cooledit....recording Bartok would be tough...and a little 'bare bones' too, on the equipment side.
But, I think a GOOD mic, pre, into your PC can yield some killer results. Why wouldn't it....(if you got your ears on)? and what's that cost...couple grand?? Mix in the computer w/ Waves, etc.. It's all there... at least in my head it is.
oh yeah...throw in some extra for converters, to keep it nice