Does recording equipment matter?

It sure matters to me and my clients. Once I knew and could hear the difference, I knew I would not likely ever be satisfied again with lesser quality that I could obtain and that is all the justification I've ever needed. The real turning point is when I learned that gear is not just gear. It is tools that are used to get a job done. The better your tools and your skill in using them, the better the results are. Great tools are expensive and should be considered an investment. Since I consider myself a professional, I take my work very serious. I believe that in doing good to great work I need to consistantly invest time, money and effort to do the best job I am capable of. It is a constant never ending drive and attitude to keep learning, experimenting, and gaining experience so that I am able to stay ahead of my clients and competition.

I do believe in gear that works

also in gear that is fairly priced

It can also be seen that there is an esoteric group out there that will hear what they want to hear.
The HiFi boys are a good example.

it may come down to making a living ... or needing to eat on occasion.

Hi end equipment does matter but, it only matters when these two other conditions are met in my opinion. You can have all of the greatest gear in the world, if the tunes stinks it stinks! Nothing can fix it. Secondly, the best peice of gear is a good set of ears.

I agree with TOMK... High end gear can significantly improve your sound but not without a set of trained ears. I believe an engineer who is a trained musician will have an advantage over an engineer who isn't.

AudioGaff wrote: Does recording equipment matter?

True. You can buy equipment for $5000 or $800 and would sound much the same, however more expensive gear has more options, easier to use and more advanced for the guys who have many years of experience. My opinion is do not get dirt cheap equipment, no name or junk. I had many problem with no name brands and also do not get any equipment used unless you know what you are getting and are experienced with gear in general. If you are really a beginner at recording by mid priced range gear good brand name. If you are experienced sound engineer go for the top and spend all your money.

I agree with much that has been said. I think hi end gear is useful-- IF you have the ears/skills to use it and IF the music is good to start with. I would rather have someone with an incredible ear as producer/engineer with cheap gear than someone with no ear/experience and alot of hi end gear-- but I do come from a players/writers perspective having been on the performing end before moving to engineering/producing...
Todd

Oats wrote: I agree with much that has been said. I think hi end gear is useful-- IF you have the ears/skills to use it and IF the music is good to start with. I would rather have someone with an incredible ear as producer/engineer with cheap gear than someone with no ear/experience and alot of hi end gear-- but I do come from a players/writers perspective having been on the performing end before moving to engineering/producing...
Todd

In past times, even the cheap stuff was pretty pricey. If you wanted to be a recordist 25 years ago, it required some commitment and dedication. Now days any schmuck with $1000 is a "producer".

Even in present times, I don't know of too many individuals with no ears or experience, that would know good gear if it bit them on the ass. Usually thier concept of great gear is what the Musicians Friend and other catalogs or thier buddy down at "Digital Mart" is pushing. Good tase in equipment is often (but not always) indicitave of a persons knowledge and expierence.

There are individuals representing themselves as being knowledgable, who seem to think they can hear well, that really just don't have a clue IMO. These are the kind of people who will say there's no difference in 96K v 44.1, who swear digital is "more accurate" than analog and that there is no difference in various EQs, compressors or mic pres.

I really don't know of too many engineers "with an incredible ear as producer/engineer" that are willing to work "with cheap gear" for the most part. My observation is anyone who can really hear (in my estimation), who has been exposed to the high end, are not so willing to go back to working with "semi pro" gear.

AudioGaff wrote: Once I knew and could hear the difference, I knew I would not likely ever be satisfied again with lesser quality that I could obtain and that is all the justification I've ever needed.

Sure, a great engineer / recordists can do good work with budget gear, but the really good ones will tell you everytime it could be much better with the good stuff. Some, absolutely refuse to work with less than the best.

Is this snobbery? Are these people lazy and unwilling to take the effort to squeeze everything possible from inexpensive gear as ahs been suggested? Or are they rare, talented, dedicated, discriminating individuals who refuse to compromise thier craft or to limit themselves to the sonic pallete of the low end? Do they know (or hear) something that the "average Joe" doesn't?

It is evident to me, why it seems there is not as much good music and more bad music since affordable gear became available. People who really have no business playing music, much less recording and producing it, are "dumbing down" the industry.

Yes I agree there is a BIG difference in levels of equipment. Just like there is a $80,000 Steinway, $120,000 Bosendoeffer and a $5,000 old Samick or any other cheap grand pianos. But I have seen many times on this board people asking what is bare bones and then are blasted because they won't or can't spend thousands or dollars on equipment. Alot of us can't spend what others can so we work with what we have to make the best recording we can. Yes I admit my ways aren't smiled upon by several on this forum, but at this time this is what I have and actually many of my recordings sound awesome. I am a classical musiciain who performs quite a bit and can hear the difference in quality or recordins and gear. Just give us guys a break who ask for advice and don't have the big bucks to spend. Who knows later on we might get better at what we do and take your jobs.

Crane wrote: I have seen many times on this board people asking what is bare bones and then are blasted because they won't or can't spend thousands or dollars on equipment.

I have been moderating this BB for over 3 years now and I can not recall one instance of that occuring. No one is being blasted or attacked on my watch for being financally challenged. I see thigs completly from the opposing POV. Recently it seems that when anyone dares suggest that high end gear is better, they are villified as lazy, a gear snob or some rich person to be resented because they have some good gear. I am getting tired of people complaining that they can't afford it. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

And how to define "bare bones"? Is that one Neve pre and a U87? Or is it a SM57 through a Behringer pre? It means different things to different people in different circumstances.

I am arriving to the conclusion that the music and audio recording business was far better off when "affordable gear" didn't exsist. At least the music was better.

As far as "taking our jobs", those from the cheap end have already laid a big fat greasy turd in the pool and ruined, as Martha Stewart would put it, "a very good thing", quality audio. They can take it now, I don't want to swim in there anymore.

If i can't afford it doesn't mean I should not record. I do this for my own enjoyment and for a few close friends. I think you "Kurt" would better off , off this board and playing with that "big fat greasy turd"

Crane wrote: If i can't afford it doesn't mean I should not record. I do this for my own enjoyment and for a few close friends. I think you "Kurt" would better off , off this board and playing with that "big fat greasy turd"

I am soooo sick of this sh*t. I never said don't record. Perhaps if you were to stop drawing inferences from what people say and accept their comments at face value, you wouldn't spend so much time putting words in other peoples mouths and then getting angry at them for something they never said in the first place.

But your last comment proves my point. It seems those who "cry broke" are usually the first to point fingers and make personal insults while they snivel about some perceived slight that no one ever made.

Who blasted who here? Am I not allowed to have and voice my opinion? Why would this board be better off without me? Because you would be able to spout off about how great your cheap gear is without someone to burst your bubble?

You don't want to learn from others experiences or be exposed to other opinions than your own. You just want to make posts on the internet about how awesome your recordings that you made are while other people rblow smoke up your rear replying how wonderful you are.

I personally don't give a rats rump what you record with, or what kind of music you play.

I remember I post I made about recording with minidisc and you were the one to say don't take advice from someone who uses this format. On the other hand others on this forum say go with what you have and do the best possible. That's all I'm trying to say here. I don't think I'm making any inferences that aren't justified. I'm not saying at all how "wonderful" I am. I do want to learn from others and have learned alot from this board but some people like yourself CAN'T seem to take anyone elses opionion if it doesn't agree with yours. Not that I have said that let's let this go and be more human towards each other. Peace

Cool ... all anger aside (and I admit this got me pissed) I am plenty willing to listen to others opinions. I however reserve the right to constructively argue points I do not agree with without enduring personal insults. Just because I am willing to keep hammering on the points of contention, does not mean I feel that people with other opinions should be silenced. I am not sure where this all comes from ... ??? Often when others reply to my posts, they bring up new points I wish to address. I am not intolerent of other opinions. I admit I may think at times that some people don't know what they are speaking about, or may not hear very well but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to speak thier minds.

As to the Minidisc, I am sorry I offended you. But you are better off recording to a decent cassette recorder than to a Minidisc. The data compression on Minidiscs do a huge amount of damage to the audio by dropping large amounts of "least significant bit" data.

Anyone (myself included) who posts on any BB should be ready to take the heat on what they say. BBs are not for the thin skinned. Like the old Fleetwood Mac Song "Oh Well" says, "Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to".

Most important (#1) - the talent in front of the microphones - the music. A lesser recording of a great performance will be more enjoyable than a great recording of a lesser performance.

Next (#2) is the talent behind the microphones - a great recording engineer with mediocre equipment will get better results than a mediocre engineer with great equipment.

Somewhere below #1 and #2 is the equipment. Recordings made with good gear sound better and are easier to work with, but without #1 and #2, what have you got?

Just a further note Kurt the new minidisc "Hi-MD" is now a no compression recording. The results are much better than the compressed recordings made with the old atrac compressed system.

Although I rspect Kurt and understand his frustration I do disagree with his premise. As Kurt knows from the pre Amp thread I am a huge advocate of those who don't have the money or choose not to purchase the esoteric gear. I have been doing this for 30 years and have gone thorugh various incarnations of Home Studios and all kinds of formats.

I am getting ready as soon as I get home to once again revamp my home studio. I'm selling just about all and simplifying. I have come to the realization that the quality of gear available today costs a tiny fraction of what that same quality would have cost when I began. Thats why I do not subscribe to the "must have a $2000 pre amp theory."

HOme recording of decent quality is available to the masses and that does upset those who feel it should still be reserved for "qualified" individuals. If the quality was that terrible, major geared studios would not be going out of business by the day. Nor would labels be looking for less expensive places to record.

I remember when I was recording on a TAscam 244 on cassette format.....I hear Bruce Springsteen records Nebraska on the same format carrys the tape around in his back pocket for a week. and it is released! I am sure it was tweaked by expensive gear at some point in the process but the original tracks were still on the lowly Tascam 244. I felt "validated" in a small way with my lowly gear.

This gave me incentive and some confidance in my own gear but more importantly the content. . I remember start up companies like Alesis (digital reverb for the masses), Ensonig (sampling for the masses) Cakewalk (Sequencing software for the masses) CAD ( large diaphraim mikes) Tascam ( my hero) and many more recent companies have made once unobtainable technology affordable to many.

The gear is getting better exponentially as the price points decrease inversely. The Gap between prosumer and Pro is very narrow and I believe now in the "hair splitting" arena in many cases. This is evidant by those who claim to need "ears" to hear the differences in very extremly priced gear. I read it many times. You need "ears." Amatuers don't have the "ears" therefore they are not qualified or something like that.

My argument would be most endusers of CDs don't have those "ears" and thus the mid priced gear is plenty good enough. I don't claim to have those "ears" nor do I want them.....golden ears are very expensive to satisfy and its unfortunate but the masses cannot appreciate the subtities of sound in their high SNR listening environments.

You can record for other producers and engineers or you can record for the general public........I choose the general public who listen to the end products as mP3s and boom boxes. There are those who will claim they record for themselves and could not live with lesser quality recording (read anything but the best gear)....well the piper has to be paid for that very personal if somewhat unappreciated by the masses need.Society has been dumbed down...I certainly am not going to pay the prices to buck that trend.

All that said..I have to say if one is recording Acoustic guitar and voice ala Tuck and Patty......There is a valid argument for very quiet gear and quality mics....$2000 pre amp? no. $3000 mike again no..but not Beheringer either.

I do believe spending $300-$400 per channel on a pre amp is plenty good enough as is a $500 LD mic. Any more than that in my experience and opinion is money better spent on music lessons....

I posted this in another thread as well but it applies here as well.

"Back in the day, when many put down Alesis for their cheap funny looking digital reverb unit", I went out and bought one and hooked it up to my crappy Phonic 16 channel stereo rack mount mixer and an old bi amp quad limiter. I recorded to a Sony consumer DAT machine using some cheap ATM11 pencil condensers and some 57's and 58's and was able to capture some pretty good performances.

But I always knew that what I was working with was more on the level of "boys toys", than that of a "real" professional recording studio. I still lusted for those compressors "that started with the letters LA" and a 2 inch machine seemed to be unattainable. I was just hoping that I could learn enough to perhaps get myself an entry level position in a "real" studio.

It's true that most people don't know the difference. But that doesn't mean there isn't. It seems to me that to know this and then on the other hand try to represent a Behringer or other cheap gear type studio as "capable of recording professional level recordings", is at the least dubious. My extreme nature makes me think it's either ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty.

As long as the people that use that stuff understand that it's more of a toy than a professional tool, I have no problem with manufacturers making and selling it ( at an appropriate cost, but that's another topic ) and people buying it and using it. Budget gear can be a great starting place for anyone who wants to get into doing audio. But these people, should focus more on the art of recording and not take that kind of gear so seriously.

I also disagree that any budget level pre amp is going to duplicate the phase accuracy and bass propagation as that of a mic pre with a well designed power supply. All of the low end stuff cheeses out on the power supplies and without that foundation, all the tubes and transformers and Burr Brown chips are worthless. There's even more to it but I can leave it at that for the moment.

Also, there are very decent mic pres for a lot less than $2000 per channel. The JLM TMP8 sells for $2100 for 8 channels. The Brick can be bought for under $350. I've used the JLM but not the Brick. But they both utilize very adequate power supplies.

ALL gear makes a difference.What you do with it makes MORE of a difference.

BTW...I'm teaching my monkey to type. As soon as hes done with this lesson, I'm expecting the Declaration Of Independance.I mean he IS using an IBM SELECTRIC for gosh sakes, it oughta be good enough for that!It is the best typewriter in the world after all........

Davedog wrote: I mean he IS using an IBM SELECTRIC for gosh sakes, it oughta be good enough for that!It is the best typewriter in the world after all........

Ahhh yes, vintage analog gear. That's the ticket 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

I certainly wouldn't say that gear doesn't make a difference. If it didn't there'd be nothing to talk about on these forums but technique, room construction, performance, maybe songwriting...hmm, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I would, however, say that the gear used is probably the least significant factor in the ultimate quality of a recording, after the song, the talent (both of musicians and engineers), the room, the instruments, the vibe, the phase of the room, the price of rice in China...okay, maybe not the last two. But I can say that if I had to go back to when I started recording and do a session, and I could either take my gear and use the skills I had then or vice versa, I'd take my current skills with my old gear and I think that the session would turn out much much better.

These are the kind of people who will say there's no difference in 96K v 44.1, who swear digital is "more accurate" than analog and that there is no difference in various EQs, compressors or mic pres.

I'm one of those who would swear that digital is more accurate than analog, because it is...not that it's necessarily better, because it isn't...but it's certainly more accurate (assuming we're talking about decent-quality gear in both formats).

As for there being no difference between 96 kHz and 44.1 kHz, I'm not necessarily one of those...with some converters, there's definitely a difference. Sometimes 44.1 kHz even sounds better. However, there is no reason why 44.1 kHz audio can't sound as good as 96 kHz or 192 kHz audio, and there are certainly converters out there that sound just as good at 44.1 kHz as they do at the higher rates. Apogee's current converters, for example, sound identical to me (and to them) at all sampling rates, and better than, say, Digidesign's converters at any rates, whereas Digidesign's converters (the 192 specifically) sound better (or at least different) at 96 khz or 192 kHz than at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz. But I'd take an Apogee at 44.1 kHz to a Digi at 192 kHz any day.

As for there being no difference in various EQ's compressors or mic pre's...I'd never say that. And even though I see the gear in the industry shifting both upwards on the high end and downwards on the low end with not so much in the middle, I do think that there are certainly differences between even the cheap gear that make some much more viable than the others.

I really don't know of too many engineers "with an incredible ear as producer/engineer" that are willing to work "with cheap gear" for the most part. My observation is anyone who can really hear (in my estimation), who has been exposed to the high end, are not so willing to go back to working with "semi pro" gear.

Of course, most would prefer not to. But if I were hired to do a project in a studio with "semi pro" gear and I liked the project, and couldn't afford to bring in the good stuff, I'd certainly be willing to work on the cheap stuff.

[I am arriving to the conclusion that the music and audio recording business was far better off when affordable gear didn't exsist. At least the music was better.

I disagree. There was plenty of crap back then, and there's plenty of good stuff now. I think we tend to remember the "golden years" as being better because we forget about the crap and remember the good stuff. I do agree, however, that it's harder to find the good stuff now because there's so much more music available overall. I'd even agree that commercial music has, for the most part, gone downhill. But if anything, I think that the availability of inexpensive recording gear has made more quality music available, and also has weeded out some of the artists that didn't necessarily deserve to be successful.

I however reserve the right to constructively argue points I do not agree with without enduring personal insults.

Sure, that's understandable, but when you accuse people of "laying a big fat greasy turd" you have to assume that people will take that as a personal insult, even though it may not have been directed at them. You're certainly insulting someone, aren't you?

-Duardo

I certainly wouldn't say that gear doesn't make a difference. If it didn't there'd be nothing to talk about on these forums but technique, room construction, performance, maybe songwriting...hmm, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I agree!

when you accuse people of "laying a big fat greasy turd" you have to assume that people will take that as a personal insult, even though it may not have been directed at them. You're certainly insulting someone, aren't you?

I went nuts last week. I'm sorry.

I have only been a visitor to this site for a couple of months now, but I have noticed that there is a broad spectrum of folks who say that they are "pro audio". Does that mean they are "for audio" or "audio pro's"? Sometimes I wonder.
I have been mic-ing up stuff for over 30 years.Yeah, I'm old! It all starts with the talent ! "Garbage in, Garbage out", as they say in the computer biz. I had to ditch my 2" Ampex 1100 16-track last year. Why? Because the dude that had kept it running all these years....DIED! I HAD to go digital. When I did, one of my clients dropped me for a guy with those old ADAT VHS-tape 8-track recorders.Why? "Because I think tape sounds better"(!). There are people out there with absolutely no idea...
That Ampex was a workhorse. 24/7/365. Sure, it had it's quirks. Nothing like going into "automatic rewind" in the middle of a session. It also had balls. And a top end that was as smooth as a baby's bottom. All in an easily-transported package the size of a modern refrigerator(with ice maker and water chiller)! My 48-track Tascam rig is 1/10th the weight, easier to use than your kid sister, and will turn out tricked-out tracks that the "Mack Track" couldn't dream of. Better? Depends on what's going into it. Do I miss it? I'll let you know after I have the Tascams 20 years.
CHEAP GEAR WILL THROW YOU UNDER THE BUS EVERY TIME!!!

I would loooove to have one of these....

(dead link removed)

unfortunately there are a few 'must haves' in front and I don't know when I'll get one... unless I get a real cool project with a big budget or I win the lotto...

Ampex 1100 2" 16 track....Mmmm....My beginnings with 'real gear' started at a friends 'little' studio....Ampex 8track 1".....Scully half-track...A big old console with strange shaped knobs,uhhh....I think there was a little metal badge on it....said Tele something or other...Great big microphones...dont know what brand...is RCA a brand?I thought they made radios......You've all heard that Ampex sound...Close your eyes and think of Led Zepplin and that drum sound....Got it?....there you go....I'll take the digital available now but damn....that sound of that acetate passing over those shiny silver things....

Yeah. Many years ago, I was a live sound mixer on the road. We stopped in this studio in Philly, and the owner had a tracking room UPSTAIRS, so that the Neumann lathe (remember those?) could be downstairs, where his wife/secretary could operate it if need be. This guy (Frank V.) had tons of gear:MCI, Sculley, EMT,etc. In the corner of the CR was this behemoth tube job with a big meter in the center of the panel, looking like a cyclops eye. All the guys in the band laughed at the "Martian Radio Box" that Frank ran the bass through. Old Frankie had the last laugh, though...it was a Fairchild! PEACE!

When you do not know what you are doing equipment really does not matter that much. A mackie or even a behringer board, a cheap soundcard, some cheap ass speakers and a daw will get you going. As you develop your ears and your chops grow, you become aware of the sonic differences and that's when good gear starts making a difference in your recordings- A concert grand does not make a pianist. But put a master with a great instrument and you will hear something! Its no different with recording. A great enginneer will get the most out great equipment and the results will be sweet indeed--

blank

blank

Well - this post is getting a bit dated, but I'll jump back in to ...

B
U
M
P

it.

I just have one comment -

If you look at Kurt's original post on this, it refers to a post over in the Acoustic Music forum regarding the same sentiment.

After reading all of this, I found it to be funny to an extent.

Those of us sitting on $50K to $100K or more gear are the ones saying "equipment doesn't matter" and "you can make a good recording with basic equipment" (I know, I'm just as guilty as the rest).

It's usually the folks that don't have that much gear or "lower quality" gear that say the contrary.

Truth be told - if you came in and took away all my favorite mics, pres, etc. I could make a good recording still. However, I would be VERY pissed at you for taking my goodies away and I would complain the entire time.

So, I guess it does matter a little (duh...), but not to the extent that most people insist. It's just that some of us are anal and HAVE to have what we perceive (for whatever reason) to be the best.

J. 8-)

hey Jeremy- it matters when you know what you are doing- but we know that, don't we- that's why we have so much stuff! when you don't have the chops sorry, nothing will really help you- put a total newb with the most expensive guitar in the Universe and you are definitely not gonna get an instant Segovia. Or if you can, please let me know! :D

maintiger wrote: ... put a total newb with the most expensive guitar in the Universe and you are definitely not gonna get an instant Segovia. Or if you can, please let me know! :D

Sure - there's a TDM plug-in for that - didn't you know??? You can't buy it, you can only hack it from Kazaa. I'm hoping they release it soon for DirectX or VST - I've got 52 guitarists hanging around waiting to sound like Segovia!

:lol:

J.

I usually make my hi-end purchases when I see a need and the budgit allows.
Last night I was doing a project for GC pro, and they brought in this mic for me to demo. I did not recognise the logo (it was a big H ) It sounded very smooth and warm. After the session, I asked what it was and it was a Hosa. I thought they made lo-end cables. I have no idea the price range, but it being a Hosa I suspect lo-end. I did a search for Hosa to see some specs and only found something related to flowers.? The mic was a tube mic and had a variable pattern switch. This is a very good disposible type of mike for lo-end projects. But then again who knows maybe it is a hi-end mic. You get what you pay for.

Well, I don't do music, nor am I a "Hi-Fi-idjit", as a amtter of fact, I have sold my so-so stereo (the best I could afford), and bought meself a piano-lacquered radio from Henry Kloss (well, the company, hehe). When I want to listen to something where I need to hear the details, I'll either put on the HD25-1s, or the RS-1s.

I do radio (i.e. as a journalist), and quite early (as in my socalled "career") I bought myself an HHB Portadisc, as that was more or less the new "industry standard". I was never quite pleased with it, though, having been taught how to "do radio" on analog gear. I bought meself some Røde mics, but I still wasn't satisfied (I was looking for some warmth and precision in my interviews and "clean-sound"). Then, after a two hour long interview, the Portadisc didn't write the TOC, so all was lost. Without having ever heard it, I phoned and bought the SD722, simply because even if the recording would get screwed up, I would likely be able to extract it from the HDD, not to mention that the simultaneous recording on the CF-card gives me peace of mind - to the extend that digital can give me that.
Now, I'm in awe of how good that recorder is. How nice the pre-amps make my interviews sound. It's even better than the Nagra (reel-reel) I was using when I was taught how to do it.

If I had a choice, though, I'd be using that micro-nagra thingy with the hand-rewind!.

Does gear matter? Well, yes, but too much gear is like too running around with seven zippos in your pocket. Of course it is nice to have a lighter, even a good one, one that gets the job done well, and it doesn't hurt if it satisfies the eyes either. But it has to get a specific job done.

Less is more to me, in most cases, but equipment does matter.

About the "ears" discussion - if "ears" shouldn't matter, why don't we all record in 128kbps MP2 ...

Anyways, I know I fall quite a lot out of this group, but any job has it's own demands - even mine. :)

I think I may be the only one to post on this thread who is currently using modern budget gear.

Ok, just a little background, hang with me guys. Played drums in a band and I always thought it would be great to do some recordings of our jams. Well this escalated from using an old boombox with a built in mic to record to cassette, to getting a microphone to plug into the 1/8" slot on my soundboard, to finally going to school to find out how to use my newly bought Behringer Eurodesk SL2442FX-PRO Mixer, Nady CM-88 condensers, and my CAD drum-mic package.

Well school taught me as much as I ever wanted to know and has secured my interest in getting a job in the industry and trying to scrape a living from being an engineer.

I had my first true recording of a friend's band recently which occured in my garage and everything went just fine. The group was playing grea t, (I truely agree with the above who posted that the most important part of a recording is the talent, both of the band and the engineer,) and while I can't say that i'm an experienced engineer, I AM satisfied with the resulting quality of the recording. Using all cheap quality mics/preamps (except for an AKG D112 I purchased recently) I was able to achieve an ok listening experience.

Now here's the crazy part. *Gasp*
I used the EQ that came with the board, (1 parametric, 2 non-variable shelving) per channel, and output through the RCA/CD to the 1/8" jack on my extremely cheap soundcard into Adobe Audition. Not only this, but I don't own a set of monitors yet (I'm currently saving up money to get the Alesis MKIIs) so I output this in turn through my computer speakers. *faint*

This is about as budget as I think you can get, (I have to start somewhere), and while I am not overly happy with the quality of the recording, I did all I could possibly do to scrape a somewhat accurate sound out of my equipment and I am happy with how it sounds with what I had to work with.

At this point, I am only interested in getting workable gear that is within my budget. The only things I can afford at this point are the semi-pro options and I will do what I can to make the most out of the gear available to me, but the high end gear is certainly not available to everyone.

Expensive gear does sound better than low end gear, there's no denying that whatsoever. While I don't have the experience yet to differentiate between different options within high end gear, i'm sure i'll get there some day. All I know is that i'm young, I have an education, and each day will bring more joy to me knowing that I can record music. No matter what I use to do it. Whew, thanks for reading.

Howdy everyone; I have been reading a lot on this forum in the last couple of months and learning a lot. For that, I say thanks to all.

So let me, if you will, jump into this pool. I'm a newbie at recording, but not at life.

On this topic, which I have done a some research and some thinking of my own, I keep these ideas in mind, especially if I feel an episode of "gear lust" coming on. What would BB King sound like on a crappy Walmart guitar? He would sound a hell of a lot better than me and 100,000 other guitar players out there with their expensive guitars, that's what he would sound like. How about what Robert Johnson did in the 20's? I don't believe they had a lot of expensive recording gear back then, but he sure did something very memorable. On some article on some web site by some professional recording engineer I remember reading this quote "You can make a good record with a two by four, if you know what you're doing", a slight exaggeration, but pretty much sums up the whole argument.

I plan on keeping those ideas in mind as I expand my gear inventory. And anyone who isn't rich and doesn't want to go broke, might consider adopting this attitude about equipment.

Just my $ 0.02.

Reply to Kurt.

8) Hi Kurt. ...I hear what you say and I agree with you.
On the gear thing. Of course it matters yes. I own second hand gear , but its all pretty good stuff. Good preamps etc.
Its the way you use it that matters I think.
And I agree with you re the golden age of recording etc. We must be grumpy old men, but I think we're right. All you need to do is have a listen to your old vynil LPs .... they're beautiful.
Just like the classic old films and the brilliant artists and actors that produced them. Sadly we are losing a generation that I don't believe we will ever see the likes of again.

cheers :wink:

Being an intermediate, self taught person of audio recording I can honestly say that I know and hear the differences between consumer, semi-pro, and pro equipment as far as digital goes. I've had a lot of people take me under their wing and I've seen a lot of pro studios and interned at a few of them. Don't ask me what the set-ups were and exactly what equipment was used because I don't know anything but a few brand names.

For myself and my studio that I use to record people I can only afford consumer grade equipment. I use a medium grade, highly used PC with an E-MU PCI card and Behringer 8-channel mic pre. After my exposure why do I use this "absolute crap"? Because I was tired of not having a multitrack system and I bought what I could without going for broke. If you want a full equipment list of what I use and then judge me look for my thread in this forum, it's not to far down the list.

I use the set-up for recording my own bands as well as others that are looking for a decent demo for cheap. Around me, $20/hour recording time gets you the worst crap that you ever paid for. I do it and put all of my best editing, ear work, and ideas into it. The truth? For what I work with no one else in the area does a better job for less than $100/hr. I could charge more, but then I would lose business. If the band that I'm recording is low on talent, at least people can hear it clearly because it's my job to make sure that they can.

Does equipment matter? Of course. Especially in MY cases it has to do with the reliability of product more than the quality because most pieces in my price range put out about the same sound. But let me tell you, good use of a parametric and gain adjustments goes a very, very long way when working with consumer grade products. Just my own experiences.

For the record, 44.1k (and 48k which I use) sucks; analog is better than digital, but high quality digital is more acurate than analog; but my SM57 rocks my guitar cab when accompanied by a good quality condenser.

Kurt I know how you feel and why you get pissed.
I was on a gun range and this dude beside me had a Rugger MK II bull barrel target pistol ( A really nice target pistol) and was shooting holes in the frigging ceiling. No where near the target
Great gear in the wrong hands make the music even worse.
When you put real bad crap in great equipment it sounds like real, real bad crap.
I use a Sony DMX R100 but the D/A's don't cut it so I have to rely on outboard D/A's. It's not an SSL but at least I try to make it the best it can be.

Some people really don't want to put S**T under a microscope. They would rather throw a greasy turd in the pool.

My hearing isn't what it use to be that's even more reason I need good stuff so I can have an edge on ME.

I have different sets of tubes for my tube stuff, each set makes the piece sound different.
Any one that says gear doesn't matter just plain can't hear.
Nothing we can do for their hearing except maybe pray for their healing
Larry

I believe that the answer to this question lies in what will become of the final recording. I believe that the world would be a much happier place if everyone knew about 1 bit resolution. This would, in my mind at least, mandate the use of high end equipment to provide a highly acurrate representation of the music as the artist originally intended. These tools, thank goodness are not readily available to every pretengineer with a pro tools rig. And why should they be when all anyone is going to do is dither the recording down and squash it into one of those nice little packages they call an mp3. If this is what you are planning to do with your recording then a couple 57's and an m-box are just about all that you need. All of this banter though is somewhat irrelevant to the bottom line. Does little Suzie care anything about how good her new favorite song sounds (much less the equipment used) while it is blaring entirely too loud out of her ipod? I think not. And because this is the case, premium quality sound will have to remain treat for the enlightened few. All hail the allmighty dollar!?!?!

Gear is nice to have, but the song is definitely the most important part. I would rather listen to the Mountain Goats, who recorded the bulk of their early albums on a boombox, than Fall Out Boy any day. Robert Johnson is another perfect example of how the song is much more important than the quality of recording.

The gear should be dependent on how good the producer is, how experienced he is, and how well he could use the equipment.

I personally know 2 bands, one of which recorded in a semi professional studio, with all that it takes in terms of equipment to make a good sounding record, and ended up with a senseless punk record which sounded like it was recorded on an eight track. (no kidding.)

The others, recorded at home, using one emu 1820M, using midrange guiatrs, (exeptable of course). And from what I've listened to, the record sounds incredibly better, and the music is fantastic and original. (the drums were recorded in a studio of course, no choice there).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to prove that equipment doesn't matter. I'm trying to prove that good equipment matters only when it's in the right hands. Begginers, shouldn't go crazy thinking they should spend their whole savings on hi-end equipment to get good sound, cause they won't. A producer should make the best out of what he has, and when he had, he should draw the line further with better equipment.