Home Studio versus Pro Studio?

[mr.moe]

all tracks recorded on pc. quality mic pre, 1604 mackie mixer, pro sound card, no vocal booth, recorded and mix through nuendo 2.0. Its all about who pressing the buttons. Garbage in garbage out. http://www.soundclick.com/legalmobbboyz

 

[jreed]

About those digital recorders, they sound better than pc's to me. I have heard stuff come from those things that was amazing, but I need to be able to edit in a larger scale. The lcd screen just doesn't work for me.

I agree. I think they sound better than pc's too (higher end). I think the lcd screen is boo boo. Even if you add a monitor (vs 2480), it still doesn't compare with the ease of editing with a pc. I also don't like the fact that you are limited to efx cards.

 

[Tim20]

Saying a a digital recorder sounds better than a PC is really irrelavent.

The converters being used in either device are what decide how good/bad the sound is going to be.

I would beg to differ that a PC with Apogee or Lucid converters sounds worse than any digital recorder on the market.

 

[dvyce]

I think dissagreement boils down to the definition of "pro sound". I believe a "pro" sound is based on the tracking, mix, and equipment. It does not have to recorded with the best gear on the market to achieve a professional sound. However to acheive the "best" sound, you definitely want to record with the best gear, signal chain, etc...

By the way, my definition of a "pro" sound would be one that is at least equal to the "industry standard" as it exists in current professional commercially distributed recordings in a particular genre.

For example, if you are making hip hop (in the style you would see on MTV or hear on mainstream commercial radio and from big labels), your recordings should be at the minimum equal in quality to everything you hear in that genré on MTV, on the radio and on the big time CD's.

If you made a mixtape with 11 songs... 10 songs being from the top artists in the genre, and the 11th song being yours... there should be absolutely no difference in recording quality between yours and theirs-- otherwise your recording is not "professional" sounding.

If you got signed, your songs should be releasable just the way they are. If they are not "album ready", then your recording is not of a "professional" standard.


If a recording is not up to that standard, then that recording is not of a "professional" standard. In that case, it would simply be a "good demo" or a "pretty good recording"

 

[Tim20]

Dvyce I think you hit the nail on the head because different genres do things different ways.

Some examples I know of:

Al Schmidt when he was running a forum offered a lot of insight into how he recorded Diana Krall. He used a specific studio in NYC because if its acoustics for strings and pianos. He preferred Lucid converters over PT HD because they sounded more open.

A lot of Nashville uses tape and or digital to tape. Even then a lot are using Radar systems not PT HD. I listened to a country CD that I know for a fact was done on PT HD and it sounded too sterile. Was it the engineer or the system? Who knows. This group tends to record drums in big studio rooms to get a lot of good room sound.

Of course none of the above is really required in Hip Hop since a lot of samplng is used and PT HD systems make it sound right.

That's not to say that things can't be done out of the norm of the genre but it is really bucking the wind.

 

[jreed]

Saying a a digital recorder sounds better than a PC is really irrelavent.

The converters being used in either device are what decide how good/bad the sound is going to be.

I would beg to differ that a PC with Apogee or Lucid converters sounds worse than any digital recorder on the market.

First of all, it's not irrelavent. Blaccteezy and I were speaking in general and from what we have heard.

Second of all converters are NOT the only thing that decide how good/bad the sound is going to be. There are many other factors such as the quality of onboard effects, the power source, the internal dither, etc. I could go on all day.

Third, we could go all day about what sounds better with whatever front end.

 

[sleepy]

The converters and the clock are really going to be the defining factors.

Onboards effects and dithering will come in at the processing stage but those will not be factors when tracking.

 

[jreed]

AMEN
Ok, obviously some people on here don't fully understand the basis of this thread. If you think that an mbox, or any other "home" style interface is professional, You don't have a clue. Protools LE is not a professional recording software. Protools TDM is the Industry standard for a reason. I know for a fact that when you record with cheap, that you get a cheap sound. I tracked the same song at home, and then went to the big lab, and bam!! Night and Day difference. More Lows, cleaner highs, fuller vocals, more seperation and more. I am damn good as far as mixing, but I know that I can't compare with someone who has been to school,and does this for a living everyday. I suggest you listen when someone gives good advice like dvyce did.

First of all no one ever said a $1000 studio would sound the same as a $100,000. The would be like saying a honda accord will drive the same as a BMW 745LI just because they share the same function. I know..I have both. Second, Pro Tools TDM is not very much different than LE. I know...I have both. And Pro Tools is not the industry standard because of it's "superior" sound quality. If that was the case, studios would not use aftermarket high end converters or use Logic as the software interface.

Finally, you said you can't compare to someone who has been to school or do this everyday. Exactly....that was one of my points A professional sound also has alot to do with the skills of the engineer. That same engineer would get a better sound than you on your mbox. Would it still not be professional?

 

[jreed]

The converters and the clock are really going to be the defining factors.

Onboards effects and dithering will come in at the processing stage but those will not be factors when tracking.

..but they all still effect the sound of the finish product. I'm not talking about tracking only.

 

[jreed]

By the way, my definition of a "pro" sound would be one that is at least equal to the "industry standard" as it exists in current professional commercially distributed recordings in a particular genre.

For example, if you are making hip hop (in the style you would see on MTV or hear on mainstream commercial radio and from big labels), your recordings should be at the minimum equal in quality to everything you hear in that genré on MTV, on the radio and on the big time CD's.

If you made a mixtape with 11 songs... 10 songs being from the top artists in the genre, and the 11th song being yours... there should be absolutely no difference in recording quality between yours and theirs-- otherwise your recording is not "professional" sounding.

If you got signed, your songs should be releasable just the way they are. If they are not "album ready", then your recording is not of a "professional" standard.


If a recording is not up to that standard, then that recording is not of a "professional" standard. In that case, it would simply be a "good demo" or a "pretty good recording"

I agree 100%

 

[jreed]

Dvyce I think you hit the nail on the head because different genres do things different ways.

Some examples I know of:

Al Schmidt when he was running a forum offered a lot of insight into how he recorded Diana Krall. He used a specific studio in NYC because if its acoustics for strings and pianos. He preferred Lucid converters over PT HD because they sounded more open.

A lot of Nashville uses tape and or digital to tape. Even then a lot are using Radar systems not PT HD. I listened to a country CD that I know for a fact was done on PT HD and it sounded too sterile. Was it the engineer or the system? Who knows. This group tends to record drums in big studio rooms to get a lot of good room sound.

Of course none of the above is really required in Hip Hop since a lot of samplng is used and PT HD systems make it sound right.

That's not to say that things can't be done out of the norm of the genre but it is really bucking the wind.

I agree. In my opinion, a professional recording/sound standard of genres can vary.

 

[dvyce]

First of all, it's not irrelavent. Blaccteezy and I were speaking in general and from what we have heard.

Second of all converters are NOT the only thing that decide how good/bad the sound is going to be. There are many other factors such as the quality of onboard effects, the power source, the internal dither, etc. I could go on all day.

Third, we could go all day about what sounds better with whatever front end.

I think what he means (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you can't really compare "PC vs hard disk recording" for sound quality.

You can say a ProTools HD|accel3 system is better than a Fostex DP-01 8track hard disk multitrack...

...and you can say that a Euphonix R-1 harddisk multitrack is better than an Mbox.

etc, etc, etc


One is not better than the other because it is "computer based" or because it is a "digital harddisk multitrack"... one is better than the other because it is better quality than that particular unit.

 

[sleepy]

..but they all still effect the sound of the finish product. I'm not talking about tracking only.

Of course.

 

[dvyce]

First of all no one ever said a $1000 studio would sound the same as a $100,000.

Actually, the only point I have been trying to make here the entire time is that you can't get the same quality professional sound with a $1000 studio as you can with a $100,000 studio.

A professional sound also has alot to do with the skills of the engineer. That same engineer would get a better sound than you on your mbox. Would it still not be professional?

No, that would not be professional quality sound. It would only be professional quality sound if a person could listen to it objectively against all other music at the top of the genré and rate it of the same standard. The engineer can do the best mix possible with that system, but it will still not be professional if the recording gear itself is not capable of producing a professional quality level of sound.

It is like, I can take my junker car and have a top quality professional artist paint racing stripes and numbers on the sides... even put a professional race driver behind the wheel... but it won't make the car able to compete in the Indy500

 

[jreed]

Actually, the only point I have been trying to make here the entire time is that you can't get the same quality professional sound with a $1000 studio as you can with a $100,000 studio.


No, that would not be professional quality sound. It would only be professional quality sound if a person could listen to it objectively against all other music at the top of the genré and rate it of the same standard.

I agree, you can not get the “same quality professional sound” with a 1k studio vs a 100k studio.

Dvyce you said
No, that would not be professional quality sound. It would only be professional quality sound if a person could listen to it objectively against all other music at the top of the genré and rate it of the same standard.

I’m sorry but that is not an accurate statement. Professional quality is not determined by rating a recording objectively against all other music at the “TOP” of the genre. One of the best….if not the best recorded hip hop albums was Dr. Dre Chronic 2001. Nothing in the genre compares to it. Does that mean that every thing else is not of professional quality?

If I choose to use a 24 trk analog tape machine tracked thru and analog board (which is not going to be as crisp and shiny as a PT system) does that mean the final product will more than likely be unprofessional? What if I want the finished product to sound a bit dirty or sound as if it was recording in smoked filled night club? Does that mean it’s not a professional sound? A live Gospel album certainly sounds different than a studio album. (often recorded in stereo). The instruments aren’t as seperated and the drums aren’t as clear. Does that mean it’s not a professional sound? It’s the perfect sound for that type of recording.

All of the above can be considered as a professional sound if it is mixed, tracked, and mastered properly.

..concerning my digital multitrack comment....dude…I know a Fostex 8 track is not going to sound as good as an HD system. I didn’t think I had to say the obvious. My comments were based on comparable systems. TO MY EARS …a 3k Roland VS2480 sounds better than a 3K computer setup.

 

[dvyce]

Dvyce you said
No, that would not be professional quality sound. It would only be professional quality sound if a person could listen to it objectively against all other music at the top of the genré and rate it of the same standard.

I’m sorry but that is not an accurate statement. Professional quality is not determined by rating a recording objectively against all other music at the “TOP” of the genre. One of the best….if not the best recorded hip hop albums was Dr. Dre Chronic 2001. Nothing in the genre compares to it. Does that mean that every thing else is not of professional quality?

Maybe the style of the music was innovative at the time, but the genre is still big time "hip hop" or "rap". It was still played on the same radio stations that played that general genré before it. It is still in the same rack in the record store. There is a certain standard of sound quality.

When Chronic came out, it was still is a top quality world class recording, even though it may have been the beginning of a new era in hip hop. You listen to it and it immediately sounds professional.

I think it will be very very unlikely that the next wave in hip hop will be: "check it out, the newest thing in big commercial hip hop is recordings that are made on only with Mbox where the recordings sound flat and small. Yeah, flat and small is the newest thing!"

Yes, you measure it against music at the top of the genré. There are plenty of people making music from any particular genré in their bedrooms and/or without very much skill... to measure yourself against them would not be measuring against a professional standard.

If I choose to use a 24 trk analog tape machine tracked thru and analog board (which is not going to be as crisp and shiny as a PT system) does that mean the final product will more than likely be unprofessional?

Those are not different quality systems (aside from the personal preference of the person choosing to use either one)... those are both professional top quality systems. It would be a creative decision to use either of those systems.

That scenario has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said.

What if I want the finished product to sound a bit dirty or sound as if it was recording in smoked filled night club? Does that mean it’s not a professional sound?

Once again, that is a creative choice. You are saying you want a recording that sounds like it is recorded in a "smokey night club."

So, if you wanted to, as a creative choice, to record a song that sounds like a "bedroom demo", then you should go ahead and record your record right into a soundblaster, or whatever.

...but if you are not creatively trying to intentionally sound like a home recording demo, then you should go to a better studio.

A live Gospel album certainly sounds different than a studio album. (often recorded in stereo). The instruments aren’t as seperated and the drums aren’t as clear. Does that mean it’s not a professional sound? It’s the perfect sound for that type of recording.

Like I said earlier, those are different genrés: "Live recordings" and "studio recordings"




So, anyway... it shouldn't be so difficult to understand. You can listen to a recording and hear whether it sounds to be of a professional standard. When you make music, you know what your ultimate goal is with that music and you know what that music needs to sound like in order to be successful.

If your goal is to play your songs for your friends, then you can record it however you want.

If your goal is to get a big record deal and be on mainstream radio, then you need a certain quality recording.

If you listen to the radio and say to yourself "that's where I want to be", then your quality needs to be as good as that.

If you are making "Muddy Waters" style blues, you don't want a recording that sounds like "Foo Fighters"

If you are recording a live album, it is not supposed to sound like a studio album.

If you completely create a new genré that doesn't exist at all in any way, then you can do whatever you want and say it is a creative choice.




There are plenty of creative choices you can make when recording music, but I can't imagine someone going in to record an album where a "creative decision" would be to record with consumer level home studio.

All of the above can be considered as a professional sound if it is mixed, tracked, and mastered properly.

...and none of that relates to my original points.

..concerning my digital multitrack comment....dude…I know a Fostex 8 track is not going to sound as good as an HD system. I didn’t think I had to say the obvious. My comments were based on comparable systems. TO MY EARS …a 3k Roland VS2480 sounds better than a 3K computer setup.

I was just explaining what I thought someone else was referring with their comment.

I am not getting trying to get involved in that one... I am sticking to my one issue here.

 

[jreed]

Obviously, you missed the entire point of my post and everything I said was relevant to this discussion. In fact, I can't even believe I'm still discussing this.

The point was the sound quality is all different. Whether it's a creative descision, live vs studio.....is irrelevant. It's still professional as long as the tracking, mix, and mastering are good and you can get a good transferrable mix on prosumer equipment.

THE END.

 

[dvyce]

Obviously, you missed the entire point of my post and everything I said was relevant to this discussion. In fact, I can't even believe I'm still discussing this.

The point was the sound quality is all different. Whether it's a creative descision, live vs studio.....is irrelevant. It's still professional as long as the tracking, mix, and mastering are good and you can get a good transferrable mix on prosumer equipment.

THE END.

What are you talking about?

You keep saying keep comparing live recordings to studio productions and saying "does that mean it is not a professional sound?"

You keep comparing things like a pro 24trk 2inch tape studio through an SSL board, to a ProTools HD based studio asking if the 24trk is not professional because it is not digital.


None of that has anything to do with what i have been saying.

What don't I understand?

Remember, you were responding to my post and questioning things I said.

all i am doing is putting your questions in the context of the one point i have been trying to make here from the beginning: this guy is not going to get a better recording quality from his Mbox than he will from the pro commercial facility he was going to.


I am not making any judgments on the virtues of analogue vs. digital, or live concert recordings vs. studio productions, or funk mixes vs. hip hop mixes, or anything like that.


I think you have missed the entire point of everything I have been saying here.


My one and only point is on the quality of the "studio" assuming all other factors are equal (good song, good performance, good engineer, etc)

You can have all those other elements performed with the highest professionalism, but if you have a substandard "studio", then the final result will be a recording that not up to a professional standard.

there is a quality ceiling with any "studio" you record in, and if you are recording everything into an Mbox (or some other comparable unit), no matter how well you set your levels or how well you performed or how good your engineer is... your quality can only get up to a certain level.


It is a situation where even your "professional" engineer would say "this is the best I can do with what you have."

I can guarantee you that even the manufacturers of these consumer recording setups would not claim that you get recordings of a professional industry standard from a $350 box.


The idea of industry standard recording quality is something that is generally understood in the record business... even in a typical record contract, in the section where it says you must deliver finished masters, they require that they be of, and use terminoligy to the effect of "recordings must be of recording quality which is that of the current industry standard for commercial releases."

 

[selector waxx]

off course there is a standard for so called proffesional recordings, made by the big record companies. But they forget a few things here. Hole musicscenes are build with prosumer studio's. Look at the now for 40 years rather popular genre as reggae. The hardcore jamaican reggae, wich is apreciated in the hole world works on selfbuild and/or cheap equipment, wich is used creative.

big reggae classics like "under mi sleng teng" from wayne smith produced by King Jammy's out of 85 is build on a casio sx-1 and a casio mt-40, mixed on a selfbuild 16 ch mixer and recorded on a self build 16 track 1" tape. Most of the outboard eq was selfbuild, or stolen.

the same style with the now in europe booming breakcore music (a harder crossover version of jungle mixed up with industrial that started here in gent 5 years ago), wich is mostly build in reason 2.5 on a pc or with cubase sx and synthedit synth's or reaktor (often hacked) and mixed in the software. Ppl like droon, sickboy, hextatic ao are worldfamous in the electronic underground with their stuff build on such systems.

Hardcore punk and the variation of it like crust is also a music where the underground (not the mainstream bands who did go more commercial) keeps it in consumer studio's and is already 30 years very popular over here.

idem with most 3th world music, wich is recorded in local self build lo fi studio's.

the weakest point in homerecording is now the convertors. Good compressors, reverbs etc are not that expensive anymore, and the software gets almost on pro level for a consumer price.

It's all about the convertors that makes the big difference. You don't need necesairaly lucid convertors to get a pro quality recording, but you need quality like rme, motu, presonus, lexicon or tascam. No sounblaster, esi, m-audio, edirol and co. But the chain is as strong as it's weakest link, so your mic's, preamps ao outboard gear, mixer and/or software need also to be quality. And last but not least, you need a right (acoustic) spot and the right skill's.

but keep also in mind that most cd players, md players, mp3 players and pc's (the music players of this time) have very bad convertors, so...

 

[jreed]

Remember, you were responding to my post and questioning things I said.

Actually, you responded to my ORGINIAL post to challenge my statements. The only point I orignially made was that generally consumers aren't as concerned with sound quality as long as they hear a decent mix.