Why your recordings suck...

[michaelhoddy]

I'm going to start this thread a bit at a time and see what emerges from other people, but let me comment on a trend I see all over the semi-pro and hobbyist side of the industry, which is the following:

"My recordings don't sound like (fill in the blank with your favorite artist or engineer)'s recordings. What's wrong?"

Then, inevitably, someone answers with somthing resembling the following: "Dude, you need new mics/mic preamps/conversion/cables/hardware outboard/DAW/plug-ins/etc."

What's interesting is that 10 years ago, when my recordings tended to suck much more often, there wasn't this burgeoning market of affordable gear to "fix" things.

Instead, I had to learn to be a better engineer with the gear I had. Better approaches to recording, better technique, better players. Those three things do more than any amount of gear.

I've heard many recordings done on Mackies and blackface ADAT's which blow away recordings done with the latest mics, preamps, and conversion. In fact, my own recordings haven't benefitted from all this fancy gear I now own nearly as much as they have benefitted from careful experimentation, learning from other, better, engineers, and probably most of all, better players and singers doing the material.

Buying more stuff has become a substitute for learning how to be an engineer, and a poor one at that. As opposed to being a hack with a lot of fancy gear. But it's tempting nonetheless. I'm tempted all the time.

There's no question that better equipment improves things. But you can't polish a turd. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

Thoughts?

[Hynek]

Originally posted by michaelhoddy
Instead, I had to learn to be a better engineer with the gear I had. Better approaches to recording, better technique, better players. Those three things do more than any amount of gear.

Your points must necessarily be perfectly true as far as my opinion goes and I can safely say I'd like to follow your footsteps rather than becoming a lost computer plug-in geek doing his time complaining about his bad, bad gear that hinders his otherwise genius efforts of making an album that would set the world on fire.

At the same time I'd like to tell you not to get too desperate because of this forum. I know it seemingly resembles a shadow boxing arena where people like to come to waste their time while trying to convince themselves they do not waste it. As for me, OK, let me think... ...I begun using e604 on kick after your praise of 421 for that app. and I became to like it very much after all. Is that enough for you to believe your time here is not spent in vain? I can add more, Michael!

Thanks for this thread and sorry if I missed the point.

[cmchamp]

Great topic Michael.
In addition, if your ears really don't have a clue what to listen to musically, how different instruments and sound blend together, and I might even add, the physics of that sound and how it blends together, then as you said. . . . "Garbage in, garbage out."
With all the 'cool' software out there, from DJ suites for laptops, to looping software, Reason, soft synths, GarageBand from Apple, I know personally, people (young people and kids) think they can just jump right in and make music (read noise) without having a clue what music is.
Music education k-12 is extremely important, and even moreso if begun before.
I perform country gospel music, and from the time my son could kick his mother in the womb, he can keep time when clapping his hands and he loves to dance. He's been surrounded by music since before he was born.
Same thing for me.
For me, getting a good mix with live sound is easier than mixing in the studio. But then I've had more experience at it, both performing it and being at the FOH board.
Studio work started back in 88 on my own little project that sold a little over 100 copies her locally. I listen to it now, and I have to laugh.
You gotta be patient, and practice. I've heard mixes bounced over and over on portastudios that have sounded sweet but the noise floor was a killer. I've also heard some of the 'cleanest' recordings from top notch studios in my field but the mix just blew chunks. Both from the same engineer.
Practice, practice practice! Listen Listen Listen, and IMHO, don't go into the recording or live sound fields unless you plan on being a musician yourself.
C.

[gmeister]

Michael,

Don't you beleive alot of it comes down to having a trained ear. Something that takes time and experience to aquire. This comes down to the same concept of having good musicians. They know how to get their instrument to sound good by playing technique and adjusting their equipment to the tone they desire, which naturally will make a better recording when the source sounds good. How can you record someone if you have no I idea what needs to be tweaked in other words if your tone deaf?

All the gear in the world will not make your recordings sound better if you don't know what your listening for and how to correct it. Once you acquire this skill better equipment will let your job become much simpler. I think the most important gear at least in my learning experience is the acoustics of your control room and very good monitors. Without this you'll never be able to aquire the sound your looking for because you can't hear with any certainty what your recording.

I can go on and on, but Michael I'm glad their is someone with your experience on this board that can help me make better judgements in regards to purchasing equipment and making better recordings.

[edhunt]

Great post Michael. There are two ways to go here. For me, I have been like Cory (No I don't do country gospel:D but untill a few years ago I only did live sound). My first recordings were on a 25 year old board into a minidisk using a 58 and a couple of 57's. At the time I was so happy to hear my own music, that I did not notice that it sounded terrible.

I have since bought gear that definitely improves the signal chain, but none of it helps me mix better. I have had to learn to listen better. Even though I have GAS as bad as anyone, I try to only make purchases that will improve my ability to do what I hear needs to be done.

On the other side of the issue, when I finally spent the $$$$$ to get a custom built guitar, I noticed an improvement in my playing. Because the guitar responded so well to every touch and nuance, if forced me to improve my technique. I am not trying to say that better gear will make you better (I know a guy who bought a new Taylor and still sounds the same as he did on his Seagull). I do however think that well puchased, better gear, will enable a person to hear mistakes more readily.

I totally agree with what you say about terrible engineers with great gear, buying better gear and still sucking. I think that the better gear I have gotten so far has helped me to go from terrible to just bad:classic:

I love these forums, because I can talk to people who are better than me, and can learn what gear to purchase instead of making a purchasing mistake along with all the mixing mistakes I already make.

Keep dishing out the good advice.

Edward

[michaelhoddy]

I do think better gear, and more importantly, gear which makes you happy (which means different things for different people) is very important. There's no question that getting an inspiring sound out of your equipment, whether a musical instrument or a piece of recording equipment, is the first and most critical step to getting a GOOD sound.

I wish there was a tangible way to know the point when one has exhausted the possibilities of a piece of equipment. That would be an excellent time to go buy something else or something new.

I remember the days when I had less money to senselessly blow on equipment. I was forced to experiment and to get creative, and the music was better, often much better, as a result.

One of the better-acclaimed projects I did some years ago (here I go tooting my horn) was a solo classical piano project. Instead of doing the typical distance-miked "big hall" feel, I went for a much smaller, more intimate feeling. I wanted the album to sound as if the pianist was playing a piano in your living room, sharing his music with some friends seated around the piano, with a good bottle of wine and the lights dimmed. In fact, my criteria for mixing was that I would literally leave the room, go to the next room, see if it sounded like a guy was playing a piano live one room over. That literally was it. The album got rave reviews, moved up at one point to the #1 independent-selling classical album on Amazon, and was critically praised by a lot of people as being the best-sounding classical album they owned.

The equipment list? An ADAT, a Mackie 1202 (I used the Mackie preamps), a pair of C414B/ULS's on the piano, and an X-Y pair of Shure SM81's in the room, which had very average acoustics. I mixed on some horrible Event monitors in an untreated room, and used an Eventide H3500 for a little ambience to enhance the warmth and intimacy of the tracks.

Hardly a stellar equipment list. Not crap, but that's what I had to work with, so I was forced to be creative. The pianist was a brilliant artist, and the piano a very nice Steinway D concert grand.

The recipe, then?

1. Really great musicians
2. Really great music
3. A creative, risk-taking, demanding engineer
4. Really great instruments
5. A reasonable-sounding room to record in
6. Gear

It's too easy now. I got a crappy kick drum sound a few weeks back, and said "Dang, I need a new kick mic." It so happens that I have like 4 kick mics, all of them good. I very nearly missed the point, and totally missed the above recipe. What I really needed to do was move the mic around a little, mess with the tuning, change the head or dampening, maybe do some creative multing or processing, or get the drummer to hit the drum a little different.

I was talking to a friend who produces some fairly high-level, high-quality CCM music for independents, and he was talking about how he had hired in one of the best guitarists in Nashville for a recent project, and what a difference it made. He said "If I had a choice between hiring a GREAT musician and recording him with average equipment, or hiring a good musician and buying or renting fancy equipment, I'd hire the GREAT musician."

I'm more and more inclined to agree.

[edhunt]

The main issue is laziness. I don't mean that to down anybody, it's just natural. If we believe that there is this magical piece of gear that will instantly make a recording better, we will naturally want to buy it, insted of tuning the room, or moving that mic for the 23rd time.

I think the biggest problem, like you said, is that there is no way to determine when you have outgrown your present gear. When is the gear holding you back vs. learning to maximize what you have.

I am wanting to get a distressor, but I refuse to purchase it untill I know how to get every ounce of utility out of my cheap Behringer comp. (I'm also broke, but who lets that stop them) After reading on this site, I decided not to get a $250, then $500, then $800 compressor in the hopes that each one would do better what I sould have learned to do on the cheap one.

In the old days people had to learn all the tricks, becuase only pros could afford "the good stuff".

Some of us who really know what they are doing (not me) should start a thread called tricks of the trade, that teaches people how to maximize the gear they own instead of buying new stuff

HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT

I have ranted enough, but I just wanted to say that I agree with you Michael.

Edward

[jas]

Michael,

Great thread. I, too, started learning this thing called "recording" around 1978. I did the routine with a consumer Sony 1/4" stereo 2-track
sound-on-sound reel to reel deck. Through the years I progressed though the Tascam stuff of the 80's & 90's and I now have a hybird system of digital and analog.

The three basic things I will share with anyone starting out...
1. go back to the recordings of the 40's, 50's, and 60's and LISTEN! How did the producer and engineer capture that sound. That's our job, you know...we reproduce sounds.

2. Don't be afraid to take risks! Traditionally in our culture there are two types of people--Pioneers and Settlers. Pioneers go out and explore & conquere. Settlers will come in and maintain the status quo. Just remember Outs go to Ins and everything in between can be manipulated to get either the sound you are hearing or the sound in your head. Settlers want the one-piece-one-setting gear. I wonder how often Sir George referred to his creativity and experimentation. When I hear a unique sound...I want to know how the engineer got it. I still use my Tascam 32 for effects when that sound is the one I am looking for on guitars and vocals.

3. Your room and your gear is your instrument! I've seen a lot of threads asking how to get the best guitar sound? The best drum sound? The best bass sound? Most of those threads concluded (rightfully) that you needed a musician who has mastered his/her instrument/craft as much as possible. The person setting behind the board, rollin' the tape, has to master that instument and craft. The only way to get better is to work and seek as much information as possible.

Enough ramblin. Again, great thread.

jas

[cmchamp]

Recipe. . . One by one in my experience.

1. Really great musicians. . . . not necessarily, but musicians who aren't so full of themselves and who the know, who told them what, and why they think it has to be this way. . . . . musicians who are willing to listen to another way of doing things to 'take it up a notch'.

2. Really great music. . . . Again, not necessarily. . . . my best projects so far, besides the orchestral stuff I do, have been for a guy and his Taylor guitar. Not the best player, not the best songwriter, but he's sincere.


3. A creative, risk-taking, demanding engineer . . . . . creative and risk-taking yes, but I usually let the producer (also me in my shop) be the demanding one (unless it has to do with engineer duties)
4. Really great instruments . . . . . You'd be surprised what I can get out of my Yamaha FG75, Korg M1 and Ibanez 5 string in a pinch.
5. A reasonable-sounding room to record in .. .. This helps tremendously. If the room acoustics stink, it takes a fabulous engineer (read miracle worker) to fix things.
6. Gear. . . . quality choice gear I think is what counts. I personally don't purchase new gear until I know I've pushed the limits of what I have. Again, with country gospel music it's pretty difficult to push the limits of what I have.

On the training of the ear. . . . when I taught band - 5 through 12 and some college, I stressed the imporance of listening to respected soloists on your instrument. This gave your ear a goal as well as some insight into the techique. For engineers, you gotta listen to good quality respected mixes. At the same time, if you are able to, allow others to listen to your mixes and don't be upset with constructive criticism.

I had one client take a quality product from my studio (read I did my job), try to get radio air play and was told it didn't have that "Nashville Sound". Well admittedly the drums didn't sound that great, but you should have seen the heads, the lead guitar-singer-manager of the group couldn't keep his guitar in tune for the life of him and the only one who really had anything going for the group was the Bassist. Needless to say, it wasn't my fault they didn't have that "Nashville" sound. How's an alternative christian rock band supposed to have that sound anyway (sarcasm)?
C.

[stewie]

hey this is a good topic but how does one justify the necessary amount of gear before you start substituting gear for skill?:D

[djui5]

Wow..this has turned out to be one of the best threads I've seen yet. It's interesting how the opinions and stories can be different yet all the same. There is a "recipie" for great recordings, and I do believe that gear can have an effect on the final product..but not be the sole factor. There's a magic that happens when a great song is played live...and you can capture that with a cheap mic or a $10,000 neumann....but the fact remains...the magic is still there. I do believe one piece of gear can sound different than another, and some would say better. But this won't fix a bad musician or a bad song. I've done really good recordings through an ssl 9000J, with good mic placement, but the players just didn't have it. The drummer was weak...and the guitar cab's didn't sound that great. And as an engineer I can tweak and process..but if the magic isn't there....I can't fake it. I also highly agree that great musicians will get sonically better recordings than a bad musician, in that their instruments will sound better and will translate a lot better to "tape". Also a listener will be more apt to listen to a good player than someone who's guitar sounds like crap. I'm doing some work with a guy in his home studio...and we have a nice drum set up in his "garage". When I first got there I expected everything to sound extremely crappy and wasen't looking forward to the project. But I did get the drums mic'd and to my supprise it sound's good. The drummer is a really good drummer and has a great sounding kit, which is a contrubiting factor for about 75% of the recording. I got a really good kick sound with just a beta52, it's warm and cut's through the mix. The only thing I'm not happy with is the room mic..which is a baby bottle. I believe this is completely due to the crappy sound of the room, I've moved it and moved it..but to complete dismay. I'm tracking the drums through a Ramsa digital console into a Fostex hard disk recorder. No fancy pre-amp's, no fancy compressors, just the mic's run through the consoles pre's into the hard disk recorder. I did compress the snare with an onboard compressor. I was pleased at the results, and also amazed. I would have thought it would have sounded horrible..but no. I got some good mic placement, with really good rejection for isolation, and it sounds great. I defeniatly learned something with this session, that you don't always need a 1/4 million $ worth of gear to get a good recording. It's not the best recording ever..but it sounds really good. The drummer is from LA and was shocked. Just thought I'd add my story and thoughts.

[elsteve9]

Hey...
I just thought I'd throw in my story.


But I don't have one.


Because I suck.

:-)

lol.
It's true.

But luckily, I once got an opportunity to record a fantastic soprano in a large catholic church, and it sounded fantastic.

Yeah.
Ok.

-Stephen

[gcjammin1]

This is a great thread. I read these forums, books and magazines to learn as much as I can about the ART or recording. If anyone is interested, RECORDING MAGAZINE is starting a series called "The Compleat Recording Musician" The first article is great. It talks about planning your session and having an idea of what you want the instruments to sound like and then using your gear to achieve it. They break it down into: Goal, Plan, Analysis, Adjustment. They also offer audio downloads from their web site to aid you in the demonstration. I think my greatest weakness is not knowing how to get the sound I'm hearing in my head or from another great mix by using my gear, different mic techniques and microphones.
I do know it really helps to listen to music. My wife gets so mad at me because I don't talk when we are driving. It's because when I'm listening to music, I listen to it as an artist would look at a painting. The instruments are panned this way, the vocals are out front, the strings come in this way,ect... I think this really helps in putting together my mixes. Again I would like to stress that recording is an ART and it does take practice, and experimenting. You just can't just buy gear, take it home and mix and expect it to sound like the pros. To borrow a quote from John Shirley in Recording Magazine:
"We record in order to express ourselves, non-verbally, through sound."

[Sinkharmony]

I think this topic refers to a problem that exists not only in recording but in pretty much every facet of current life (especially in the US). People tend to always want to find the easy way out of situations and attribute the most popular or most expensive items as the best. No one wants to really explore and work at making their lives/music/etc better! The overwhelming feel is that life is passing them by and they need to catch the wave now before they are gone and done. As the previous post mentioned, feel people take the time to appreciate things anymore. No one has time to actually "sit down" and listen to music. People bitch and moan when they have to watch a 3 hour movie instead of a 2 hour one. It blows my mind sometimes and it really disappoints me that everything in today's culture needs to be pre-packed, on sale and come with a extra bonus dvd/cd to even get people to buy it...or at least have a girl with boobs hanging out all over the place on the cover. What ever happened to GOOD MATERIAL?

[Sinkharmony]

in the last post I said "feel people take the time...etc). I meant "few people take the time!"

Doh!

[patrox247]

With relative low-fi recordings and styles wich suite lower fidelity aside, I would find it very hard to be a working profesional with the use of less than profesional gear. Sure it is possible to create cool recordings on budget gear, but it is not acceptable to have your gear hold back the sonic potential of a clients work. After all it is real peoples dreams and lifes work that are at stake and it is our responsibility as producers and engineers to not only be well skilled and knowledgable, but suitabley equiped as well. Shouldn't our tastes grow as well as our skills? Although it is true that gear is only one piece of the pie, it is a piece that should be expected as part of being a pro. It is our duty to always do our best regardless of our opinion of the tallent we are working with.

[edhunt]

Lets change it a little bit. I have found two types of engineers: the type that want to want to sonically document history, and the ones who want to create an artistic impression of what occured.

Some guys want to go for hyperrealism, and others want to create a certain sound that may or may not have been there in the beginning.

I would like to see different people post and see where along the spectrum they fall.

For me, extreem realism is not what I am going for, because with few exceptions the bands I have worked with in the past, have not had the best equipment (neither did I, but ......) so my goal was to do what I could to make the cheap 1x10 practice amp sound as close to a tripple rectifier, Marshal 4x12, etc... I have replaced drum sounds, because the heads on the drums were so beaten, Buddy Rich couldn't get good tone out of them, I have layed guitar tracks down because the guitar player couldn,t get it right, and so on.

I have a project comming up in a few weeks that will be my first with what I would considder "studio" musicians, and it will be interesting to see how much better it sounds (pre- mix, eq, etc...) than my other projects.

Do you guys go for accurate representation of what was in the room, artistic representation of what was in the room, or a combination of the two, depending how good it sounded in the room to begin with?

Edward

[michaelhoddy]

I honestly think that a great track (brought to be by a combination of instruments, acoustics, recording technique, and musical talent) is really the best jumping-off point for artistic creativity. True, you can improve a boring or average track with some creative work in production or post-production, but it very often still sounds like an average track dressed up with production technique.

If it's happening in the studio before you press record, 80 percent of making a great-sounding, listenable track is already done, in my opinion. No amount of gear or artistry on the part of the engineer can bring a dead track to life. However, that same artistry applied to a great track can yield magic.

It's part of why I go for emotion and attitude rather than perfection these days.

As to being true to the source, I guess it depends on what the source material is, at least for me.

[reignstorm]

I have to note how amusing it it for me to l isten to recordings of groups like the Beatles or anyone from back then. The music inspires emotion like anything I have heard, yet we all know that the "fidelity" of the recordings is not exactly top notch. The had great songs, and great engineers with less than "hi-fi" gear..and made some of the best music ever.


ED, I also wanted to comment on what you said earlier about the guitar you bought. A few years back...well..like 6, i bought a Carvin for like $1000 and i could play so much better on that guitar the first day i got it. I'm a big fan of serious young musicians investing in a good guitar.

oh...and yeah I used to be a poser with nice gear....then I started using my ears...I'm still a poser, but much more effective as an engineer.

-darren

[michaelhoddy]

Originally posted by patrox247
With relative low-fi recordings and styles wich suite lower fidelity aside, I would find it very hard to be a working profesional with the use of less than profesional gear. Sure it is possible to create cool recordings on budget gear, but it is not acceptable to have your gear hold back the sonic potential of a clients work. After all it is real peoples dreams and lifes work that are at stake and it is our responsibility as producers and engineers to not only be well skilled and knowledgable, but suitabley equiped as well. Shouldn't our tastes grow as well as our skills? Although it is true that gear is only one piece of the pie, it is a piece that should be expected as part of being a pro. It is our duty to always do our best regardless of our opinion of the tallent we are working with.

I would not consider much of even the semi-pro level gear available today to be "lo-fi." Ten years ago, most of us would have killed for what one can walk into Banjo Mart today and buy for $1000.

With the above statement as a given, I also think that 90 percent of time gear is not the limiting factor, rather it is the music itself or the engineer. All my fancy mics and preamps can't turn crap to gold, and George Massenburg on a Mackie will mix circles around me and my fancy DAW.

There is certainly a point at which the gear DOES become the limiting factor. My theory is that most of us haven't reached that point, and instead, attempt to compensate for this lack of talent or vision by buying more stuff. I sure do, very often. Look at how many of the "my recordings don't sound like XYZ artist's" threads on this and other internet boards end up. With the person being told to buy more mics, preamps, better converters, or more outboard. Usually, that isn't the main problem.

Case in point, my good friend's brother produces hip-hop and R&B tracks that absolutely blow my mind and sound awesome. He has some major-artist clients as a result of his creativity. He does all his work in a basement in Brooklyn on a Behringer mixer, some Alesis and Mackie monitors, two inexpensive mics, and DP with no plug-ins, as well as some keyboards and an MPC. Now, he could probably do better with the resources of a well-equipped A-list studio. But that's not what made him great at what he does. I own a whole lot more gear, and couldn't approach the stuff this guy does in his basement.

My definition of a professional is one who turns out great-sounding records regardless of the gear being used. I know a lot of hacks who happen to have a lot of money, and buy lots of gear. That doesn't make them any more professional than one's financial ability to buy a Ferrari makes that person a race car driver.

Now, many or most professionals use great gear. But they've generally earned their stripes along the way.

[edhunt]

Reignstorm,

Yea, my new guitar has so far been the best improvement in my recording chain as far as acoustic tone goes:)

Any one hear the Rich Mullens double CD where he recorded demos on a cheap tape player? To me, even though the quality of the recording is crap, his songs on the VERY low fidelity tape machine are much better than the 2nd CD where his band went in the studio and recorded the same songs with different lead singers for the songs.

Kind of makes you wonder.....

Edward

[patrox247]

I assumed quality source material as a given. And as far as the fidelity of the Beatles recordings, they tracked in the top studios with the top producers and gear of thier day. And as far as semi-pro gear being acceptable, that is an issue of personal standards. If that is what creates the results you are looking for, then I tip my hat to you. I however have a different opinion on the matter. I beleive that two people can have two tottaly different ways of going about a job. Both might have what it takes to get the job done, however one might be substantially better than the other. There is no question that George Massenburg could indeed do fairly acceptable or even good work on semi pro gear. That would never happen however as George has standards and a reputation to uphold as a profesional. Like it or not, good gear can be a real difference maker (not the only one). I'm not saying it is the most important factor, or even in the top 3 or 4. I'm just saying that in general your gear should grow along with your skill level. It's about being well balanced and about being the best engineer/producer you are capable of being.

[michaelhoddy]

I'm not saying it is the most important factor, or even in the top 3 or 4. I'm just saying that in general your gear should grow along with your skill level. It's about being well balanced and about being the best engineer/producer you are capable of being.

Exactly. But you're missing my point. My point is that gear acquisition and talent or skill acquisition don't seem to be tracking the same curve, especially on the semi-pro and home/project studio fields.

Few would argue that the equipment available today for a given amount of money is generally many times better than the equipment available for the same price in the same market 10 years ago. If gear acquisition and skill level improvement were happening at the same rate, then the quality of project studio recordings should be several times better today than it was 10 years ago as a median average.

Take a listen around, and that is obviously not the case.

Equipment has become the panacea for crappy recordings in the same way that miracle diet pills have become the panacea for healthy eating and exercise. And the music is the thing that suffers.

If Martin and the Beatles had even a Digi 002, they would have done stuff that makes our heads spin.

And I have a lot of really great equipment. I mean world-class stuff in many cases. All the stuff I recommend in these threads I either use or own. I'm not for a second saying that we should dump our Oxfords and our expensive preamps and go buy Behringer mixers (I don't like Behringer at all), because great equipment has its place. But, with the possible exception of my ADAM monitors, equipment alone hasn't been the big difference-maker for me over the years.

[jas]

Listen to the Beatles latest release, Let It Be--Naked. Better yet, read about it. I think it states that the cut that made the album for "The Long And Winding Road", was like the 27th take. That means that in addition to learning the song, and rehearsing the song, they (the Beatles, the producer, and the engineer) tracked the song 27 times. After each take, all would listen to the song, disect the song, make necessary changes/adjustments, and track the song again. I am willing to assume that the producer and engineer made changes and adjustments each time, too. Also, I remember reading that the final vocal on Whitney's "I Will Always Love You" was a composite of some numorous amount of tracks. With all, that equates to alot of work.

Like Michael stated, even the low-end stuff available today is better than the limited equipment available to me when I started out around 1978. Hell, I would have worshiped some of the Behringer stuff back then. I was one of the first in my town to have a home studio...trust me, there was no Audio Technica, CAD, SE back then, not to mention the affordable stuff now offered by AKG and Neumann was nowhere in site.

All I know is that I am a songwriter. I own a licensed music publishing company through B.M.I. My products are my songs. My competition is not only every other songwriter in the world, but every song that's ever been written. When I pitch material it has to be top notch--lyrically, musically, and production wise. The competition is vicsious. If I don't pitch sonically good material...my competition is. Oh yeah, the song content has to be there, too.

There is an old lesson in songwriting. Take a hit song, Doobie Brothers, Hank Williams (Sr or JR), the Gershwins, etc. Sit down with a piece of paper and a pen. Write one of their songs. Guess what? You've just written a hit song. Try doing the same in your studio. Record, in stereo, a song you like from a CD or casstte. Get one of those half moon measuring devices (I think it's called a protarctor). Sit in the mix position, holding the protractor in front of you at forhead height, and listen to where everything is positioned in that mix. This is one little method that may indicate that your room is calibrated correctly and getting proper separation. A common mishap is putting too much of the same frequecncy in the same space when you are mixing. Now try to get the guitar, bass, keyboard sound you hear in that song. Compare your tracks to the song. You can do it...it just takes effort.

When I write, it takes several rewrites until I am ready to begin production in my "HOME BASED STUDIO" which is in the basement of my home. This room took me two years to bulid. No two walls are paralell to each other. I have low ceiling height. I made most of the absorbers and diffusors my self. This room kicks ass. It took a lot of reading, visting other rooms, calibrating, re-doing, etc. Hell, I even went to a local theater and measured the angle of the walls and floors. My wife stated once that its like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. I think she is right.

When I record, I hire the best musicians I can find...fortunately I live near Cleveland, Ohio. When we work, I know each of them has their parts down, I know they understand what I am trying to achieve. Yet, we will sometimes record Lord who knows how many takes before we feel we've nailed it. The same notes...just maybe a different amp, or positioning the amp differently, or maybe a different mic, or a different processor. God, who knows. I just know what I am hearing, and after 20 plus years I have to search ( experiment) to get it.

WORK, LISTEN, READ...did I mention WORK. You will find and develop the tried and true--for you.

Here's a couple of things that may help you (they've helped me). If you don't have a Tone Generator, go buy one. Once you get your input chain the way you want it--calibrate it! You may then find that the low end stuff can sound prtty good through a claibrated chain. Follow the signal path and know where you are with your Gain Staging. I have a Tascam 520 board. This board allows me to use the VU meters to examine external signals. I use these meters to set up the various chains when tracking on a VS-2480. Gues what? I found that the output on the 2480 needs to be peaked at -12db, which equates to 0db on a meter. The same goes with the inputs...if I am feeding 0db to the 2480, I need to max that input on the 2480 to -12db. I also, use a meter to adjust the loudness of my monitors to 80db.

I could go on forever, or at least 20 something years worth. Llike Michael and alot of other people state... There is no "One Best Way" but to work.

WORK, LEARN and HAVE FUN!

[AVDork3000]

Well, in my opinion fancy gear does make a difference. Example, if you came in and recorded on a 12 channnel $80.00 behringer mixer going into a soundblster card in a Dell Dimension 8300, with no recording software exept Creative Recorder ( my setup) your recording would probably sound bad. Unlike if you recording on a Mackie 28-channel board going into a G5 with WAVES Diamond, it would probably sound a bit better. But I also agree with what Michael said.

<This post has been edited for content by your friendly moderator>

[elsteve9]

Jas, I'm a bit confused by your signal level discussion.
Could you please expound?


-Stephen

[tinkerbox]

When I first started my recording studio 7 years ago I was a nervous wreck because I was really green at recording anything.I would record people for a few hours or until we were done and when everyone left I would work on mixing off the clock (sometimes all night)to just learn more and try to get the best sound ever.After a while I just became more and more confident in myself and my craft.But yes the engineer cant do everything it takes a team effort with the band.From the first note to the finished product.Now a days with the help of pro tools and good preamps its really hard to mess up a mix.but ya gotta start with the song and the people performing it.they can easily make it or break it.I feel strongly of my mixing and recording skills but i also know theres always someone better.i guess what im trying to say is be patient and if you make a mistake learn from it .im in it for the long haul and i love to learn ways to improve my recordings.this forum is the only forum musically i go to and i love it.thank you:)

[djui5]

Originally posted by tinkerbox
Now a days with the help of pro tools and good preamps its really hard to mess up a mix.

Wanna bet?


Steve,
I think Jas was commenting on the importance of gain staging and it's effects on audio quality. It's easy to let levels get away from you and can ruin the sound of something without the engineer knowing what's wrong. I think that was his point..but I may be wrong.

[jas]

Steve,

Gain Staging is exactly what I am talking about.

I like to make sure that 0db means the same thing throughout the whole chain. Let's use a guitar/amp track as an example.

Once the guitar player has set up his/her rig and you like what you are hearing, your signal chain may look like this:

mic > preamp/channel strip > compressor > recorder

I will run a 1k test tone from the 520 board set at 0db into the Input on the preamp; once I set the Input on the preamp at its 0db level I will move to the Output level on the preamp. Once the Output level on the preamp is set, I run it back to a VU meter and make sure that the signal from the preamp is putting out 0db.

Then I will run the Output from the preamp to the Input of the compressor and repeat the steps above.

Then I perform the final analysis between the last processor to the recorder.

I have learned over time that just because something says 0db, doesn't mean it is actually performing at 0db. Manufacturers can put any speck on a speck sheet. They aren't lying. It's just the standard they used to speck the piece out may not be the same as the standard used by another manufacturer. I learned this about manufacturers of microphones. Ever see those ads where a microphone manufacturer compares their mic to a Neumann? A couple of years back I made my own data base and compared the specks of several microphones. My baseline data was the highest end Neumann Mics. I learned that the specks and standards were not standardized with some of the mics.

Also, I work solo alot. When I am tracking my acoustic guitar, or a vocal, I only need to look at either the meters on the preamp or on the 2480 to see what's going on and have confidence. Nothing will take you off axis from a mic than trying to watch a bunch of meters while you're trying to concentrate on a track.

I hope this helps. It works for me. It has really helped me with the quality of my tracking.

Tracking with very good, hi-end equipment, I might add.

[michaelhoddy]

I found this on another forum, from Motown legend Bob Ohlsson. Seems to put it all into perspective, and says what I'm thinking better than I ever could:




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by doug_hti
...I look at the chain as being this...

-song/arrangement
-performance
-room
-instrument
-mics
-preamps
-converters
-eq
-compression

If 7 out of 9 of these are world class, then chances are you can still pull off a world class track....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually either ONE of the first two CAN be more than enough. I recently did a project that is exactly that way and this has made some great food for thought. Having both of first two will almost always get you there. The rest of the stuff just helps you distract people from any problems with the first two elements.


__________________
Bob's work room 615 385-8051
http://hyperback.com

[djui5]

Well done...that's perfect.

[soundworx]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edhunt
Reignstorm
Any one hear the Rich Mullens double CD where he recorded demos on a cheap tape player? To me, even though the quality of the recording is crap, his songs on the VERY low fidelity tape machine are much better than the 2nd CD where his band went in the studio and recorded the same songs with different lead singers for the songs.

Edward [/QUOTE

Ed,

Being a huge Rich Mullins fan, I was so disappointed in this project. The lo-fi disc of Rich in a church with a portable cassette recorder is almost unlistenable it is so bad. In this case, even great songs were ruined by a very distracting lack of quality. The tape was never meant for release, it was strictly a practice tape and should have been left that way. Rich is probably in heaven now asking "why in the world did they do that"?

The production on the studio version with the Ragamuffins and various CCM artists fronting the songs is technically great. The mixes are right on, the engineering is top notch as well as the great songwriting skills of Rich.......AND IT SUCKS, I MEAN BIG TIME SUCKS. Here we have great songs, great musicians, a top notch studio with great sounding rooms and all the trimmings and it is horrible. I have listened to it on several occasions throughout the years hoping it will redeem itself and it doesn't. Why???

Interpretation and emotional attachment. As much as I like Rick Elias and the Ragamuffins. Rick is not a producer. This was proven again the next year when the Ragamuffins produced a solo album that flopped. Again, the songs were good, the players all good, and the studio top notch. But the missing link IMHO is objectivity. If you are not objective about what you are doing you will put out less than stellar recordings. Getting a variety of opinions from a variety of sources can really improve your mixes and your skills as producer. In the case of the Jesus Record, the Ragamuffins were to close to the source. It was too soon after Rich died to put that record out and without Rich directing the show it just didn't make it. Sometimes we need to just step away for a while.

Mick Haensler
Soundworx

[elsteve9]

I'm curious...I have both of these albums. What sort of objective decisions do you think should have been made, for example?

I too would agree: I generally listen to the demo cd, and not the studio one.

-Stephen

[reignstorm]

hehe, thats funny that this has turned into a rich mullens thread...

but as far as the studio version sucking....well...it definitely is missing something...

This reminds me of the first Lifehouse album. If I'm not mistaking, three or four tracks on that disc were demo versions recorded in a less-then-stellar studio envoronment, but they captured a certain magic. When the band got signed they had tons more money but couldn't create that magic again...so they put the demo versions on the record.

[michaelhoddy]

And it's my theory that all of the gear in the world, as good as it is and as useful as it is, can't recreate that magic.

I have some boombox demos from a friend that I've recorded over the years, and it has been the hardest thing to capture the same magic as those crappy-sounding demos in the studio.

[edhunt]

It seems as if we all agree that we are wasting our money if the source material is no good:) .

As far as the Rich thing goes, I have always liked emotion and energy over technology, so I may be just bent to like the Boombox recording more. I just feel that it had "it" and the studio album did not. You are right, though, the quality more than sucks.

I just thought it was the best $$$$$$ example of Michael's reason for posting this thread. As much as we all have GAS, it is not about the gear if you don't know how to use it. Or if the performance is no good in the first place.

Edwarc

[soundworx]

Originally posted by elsteve9
I'm curious...I have both of these albums. What sort of objective decisions do you think should have been made, for example?

-Stephen

The biggest objective decision I believe would have been not to include Michael W Smith or Amy Grant on this album. Why? I do not feel either of these pop stars have the depth to interpret a Rich Mullins song. It's my feeling only though. I know both were friends of Rich, but I feel they were put on there to sell albums. Not pay homage to Rich.

The next decision I feel was wrong was to have Rick produce the albums. To soon after Rich's death, to close to the source. If a detectives' wife is murdered, the last person who gets to work on the case is that detective. He can't be objective, same thing here.

And finally, the demos were not demos. They were practice tapes....period! Demo is short for demonstration. These were not demonstrations but extremely rough works in progress. Rich was known for being meticulous about releasing an album. I can't imagine he would have approved of this.

Am I blessed by this album? Yes!!! It is the last thing we will ever hear from one of America's greatest storytellers And I'm glad it's out there. But then again....I'm not very objective about these type of things....Damn I miss him

Mick Haensler
Soundworx

[elsteve9]

:-)
Sorry...I almost launched into 'I miss rich' story.

-Stephen

[drumguy]

Here's a funny one...

When I first started recording. I went down to guitar center and bought Cool Edit Pro. I had a cheap mic from best buy, and another cheap old sony stereo mic. No preamps... just plugged straight into the computer's mic jack.

By running that stereo mic between the kick and snare, then using a hard limiter and EQ to bring out the cymbals, then doing everything else with the best buy mic, I actually made recordings that, although not 'high fidelity' they had a better overall sound and mix then some stuff I've recently heard out of some people's studios around here.

I know I blew some people away comparing these multi-track studio recordings to something I'd done with one microphone!

Nowadays, I run a small project studio. I'm starting to get some nice gear (TLM 193, Avalon 737, Beta 98's, ect..). But all of that is nothing without using my ear!

[drumguy]

I didn't read the whole thread when I posted this...

Rich is great! Awesome God is still one of my fav tunes at church.

It's funny... I've had a hard time capturing some of the magic that some of the old boombox recordings of mine had too. I think there's a strange form of low-fidelity magic that happens, especially when it's the first thing you recorded and you listened to it constantly, now any hi-fidelity remake that I've tried to do of those, it just doesn't "do it" the same way.

go figure huh?

[djui5]

very good story. You're right...it's nothing without your ears..and a bad engineer can ruin a million $'s worth of gear.

This is kinda off topic..sorry.
Do you happen to know Skip Gammell? He's a good friend of mine and lives in Aurora...just a glimmer of hope that you might know him or how to contact him. I haven't talked to him in a number of years. Thanks..

[soundworx]

Skip Gammell?? Skip Gammell ?? Skip Gammell is a ten foot tall beast man who showers in vodka and feeds his babies shrimp scampi....

Once Skip Gammell rode a steed, perchance to spy a lady

I could go on....but then again (glasses up) HERE'S TO SKIP GAMMELL!!!




sorry Randy, couldn't resist

[djui5]

I think I missed something....or someone has had wayyy to much coffee today..haha.

[Ed Belknap]

Originally posted by michaelhoddy

What's interesting is that 10 years ago, when my recordings tended to suck much more often, there wasn't this burgeoning market of affordable gear to "fix" things.


What's really interesting is that 10 years ago my recordings sucked LESS!

[sonicdeviant]

Originally posted by reignstorm
I have to note how amusing it it for me to l isten to recordings of groups like the Beatles or anyone from back then. The music inspires emotion like anything I have heard, yet we all know that the "fidelity" of the recordings is not exactly top notch.

You've hit it. Take Robert Johnson. Those are mono recordings of a man and his guitar, yet it's one of the top albums I listen to on my iPod. As a matter of fact, there's something very nostalgic about those recordings. When I listen to them they deliver me to another time and place and I just get lost in the music and feeling. :cool:

I doubt that those tunes were recorded through a Neve console and $10K Neumann or whatever. I think those recordings were direct to disc right? We're talking before Les gave us multitracking. Anyway...the point is that the gear and lack of engineering didn't get in the way of the performance. So I think that good compositions, ideas, and musicianship are most important.

And with computers and software getting better and better, home project studios really don't have a reason to keep expanding. My studio is de-expanding, but I think the recordings are getting better over time (and...technology has helped since my days of the cassette 4-track, but I sure have learned a lot since then too).