From my experience the greatest music ever was recorded live to 2 track tape.

No matter how many tracks you use to mix the commercial crap you've had to compromise to pay off the loan for your set up, duke ellington still is ****ting on you.Go ahaead and mix your pepsi commercials and boy bands.

"real" musicians only need 2 tracks because they can play their instruments.
If you want to talk about pro thats it.
All technology has done is allowed people who would be best off as plumbers or electritians to think their musicians.

I dont need a mix++ because I am a musician.But I do enjoy playing with a multi track machine.If used properly whether it be a mix system, or a motu system it should work just fine.I use a digi 001, and If you want to trade that for your mix system Im not gonna refuse.

But, I've used both and I dont feel deprived because of ,my plug in count.
I do feel deprived because I dont have a great mic selection or a great room(s)

So greg, I'd simply reply that of course a system such as soundscpae of the real pro tools gives superior performance.But in real world application what someone not using a big studio is missing is not that, Its the room, the mics, the pre amps, the moniters etc.

The equipment doesnt play itself.And I do have a quasi sophisticated ears. Most work of home recordists is simply put amateur.But ive also heard people record with nothing more then a 001 and a rode nt-1 that deliver a quality that is the epitome of professional , so in the end its talent.period.

Now a days a talented person can take a 001 and rode nt-1 and do some damage.
Of course both the mic and the daw ive mentioned have been consistantly bashed by audiphiles.Generally though audiophile is an abbreviation for "no musical talent"

Real "audiophiles" dont look at the label on the gear or snobbishly snipe from their high vantage because the realise theres only one thing that matters.

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE SOUND EMINATING FROM THE SPEAKERS AT THE END OF THE DAY.

And by this criteria peole like Duke Ellington and Sarah Vaughn are ****ting on all of us.( not to mention Stravinsky or Ornette Coleman)

Greg, I agree with you on this one only if you include PT and all other fixed point digital DAW's. IMO the sonic quality can absolutely be the same in host based and fixed point (PT) DAW’s.
In functionality, no, host based DAW's can more easily become a night mare in comparison.
Of course, anyone using a host based set up must carefully select the best computer, converters, mixer, etc, money can buy in order to become any kind of a contender with non host based set ups. I have also discovered recently that the way the software is written aboulutly does make a difference, just as it is obvious with plug ins, so it is with the host software you use, therefore, selecting the right host based software is a “sonic” factor.
I base my opinion on the many horrible and great CD's I've heard coming from both camps. I have also listened to a ton of analog stuff (as most people have) and that to me confirms what you’re saying here to a substantial degree!

Robert, I can't believe that you were being serious in your last post, were you?

<< "real" musicians only need 2 tracks because they can play their instruments. >>

True, providing of course you are only recording a single musician playing a single instrument, unaccompanied.

<< I dont need a mix++ because I am a musician. >>

Correct again, if you are that good of a musician a mix++ system is almost certainly inadequate. Unless the mix++ system is in a world class facility and you don't use any plugins. Even so, it wouldn't be my first choice.

<< I do feel deprived because I dont have a great mic selection or a great room(s) >>

Yep, that's my point! The 001 user is never going to be able to afford high quality rooms, mic collections, monitors, etc. If the 001 user does find themselves in a position to own these things, be assured by that stage the last thing they will want to hook up to all this high end gear will be a 001!

<< THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE SOUND EMINATING FROM THE SPEAKERS AT THE END OF THE DAY. >>

Absolutely true but whose speakers are we talking about? The Digi 001 owner is unlikely to be able to afford anything other than relatively cheap monitors. Getting your mix to sound good on these speakers may have no relevance whatsoever, unless your music is only ever going to be heard through your speakers. The hugely expensive monitoring systems in major studios come pretty close to showing up every tiny imperfection in your recording, mixing or mastering. This gives you an opportunity to correct any imperfections that maybe highlighted on the various different consumer playback systems.

Robert, you've spoken about delivering "a quality that is the epitome of professional" on a 001 and a lot about talent. In light of my last message, the conclusion I am forced to make is that your understanding of both must be limited. For all I know, you may be a very talented musician. But being a talented musician is no indicator as to whether you have any talent as a recording engineer, mixing engineer, producer or mastering engineer.

Tony C: << Greg, I agree with you on this one only if you include PT and all other fixed point digital DAW's. >>

The reason I was making a distinction between say PT (mix+) and a host based system (Digi 001 for example) is simply because the mix+ system is so expandable. If you've got the money you can dispense with grainy plugins (even the TDM ones) altogether and have tons of I/Os going to banks of much higher quality outboard gear. Furthermore, if you can afford a fully featured mix+/procontrol setup then you can probably afford much better outboard gear in addition to a better recording environment; monitors, acoustics, mics, etc. So in practice the mix+ system owner is usually in a much better position to produce quality recordings than the 001 user.

As far as the actual inherent recording and playback quality of a mix+ system is concerned, ie. ignoring plugins, ADCs, etc., you're absolutely correct IMO. There maybe variations from one DAW to another but overall the quality is not greatly different.

Greg

Hi Greg,

Gotta disagree with you on some points.

I don't think it right that everyone who uses a DAW based studio is an inexperienced user.
The examples I mentioned before are good successful examples...! I personally think those who think that these big studios aren't replacable are definitely deluding themselves.
I think Greg, you underestimate the quality of the "home studio". Some of these studios are of amazing standard. Plenty of them have multiple U87's plus some of the most innovative mics, plenty of outboard gear etc. The first time I came across the new Sony reverb, and lex stuff was in a "home studio".

I'm not saying right now the big studio is replaceable, but anyone who underestimates what technology will do in the future has got to be wrong. One day there will be a plugin which will be of level par quality of the best stuff that is out there already. I've worked with some of the best engineers at my studio and they've gotten incredible results.

I, myself am a double bassist and work predominantely as an electric bass player, (yes, through choice!). I appreciate genius mainly because I ain't! I know the old addage "the more you know the less you know" but we are discussing the tools of genius not the genius itself. The people I consider the epitome of our industry (that is the ones I've worked with) like and use the DAW/home studio setup.

The thrust of this argument comes down to this. "Is the home studio/DAW good enough for a commercially acceptable release?" The answer is "yes" because people have done. The argument really isn't about what is better, really, it's about do you think we really need to hire a £850/day studio...most will come to the conclusion that you don't. The future must be the home studio.

I agree, there's so much to learn, but in terms of the tools we use, it'll all end up with a computer and some goggles which will give you Abbey Road right in your living room!!

Regards

mm

Well greg your absolutely correct about the advantages of a mix system.And we cant overlook things like plug ins or expandability because that is the nature of these systems, that you can use them in these ways.

But it seems most people who use this stuff have had to make big compromises to get at it.That is cool, pop music has its place, but I personally dont want to be involved in that trip.I like diminished fifths way too much.

The rest of this comes down to asthetics.
That is a matter of taste.
But i'd add that one shouldnt listen to one crappy recording and then assume that all diy material is crap.Artists like tom waits and squarepusher have made very successful experiments with low fi. D.J spooky records on a performa.
Experimental musicians like David Torn and Mathew Shipp have made great music recording in various situations.

Muddy Waters sounded much better on his library of congress field recordings than his overproduced material from the 70'
s and 60's.
SO!!!!

When i want to pound a nail i reach for a hammer.
when i want to trurn a screw I use a screwdriver.
Its nice to have the option to choose either, but many are able to make due with less then "ideal" circumstances.

As far as my 2 track comment, that is how most of the classic jazz recorings were made.I was dead serious when i said that. But whats needed and what is useful are 2 different things.

Listen to an album like kind of blue, or a love supreme as some examples.

HOT, HOT, HOT TOPIC!!!

Greg, I can totally see where you're comin from when you're talkin about big-ass live rooms, quality monitors, and experienced engineers as mentors.

As I said before, you might get lucky with your DAW and figure out how to do things "right", but the chances are much better when you have a veteran to show you how.

But here is what I can see happening:
Let's say hypothetically, big studio "XYZ Recording" has 6 rooms and needs a staff of no less than 50 people to operate effectively. Each year they get a number of applicants to intern there. Historically, 50% of the interns quit before getting promoted to General Assistant. Of that 50%, half leave within a year to work at other studios, be it their home studio, film house, project, McDonald's, ect. As DAW quality improves and prices continue to drop in both DAW manufacturers and computers themselves, more prospective interns will skip school and the whole intern/apprentice process in favor of their basement or garage. This means less staff for XYZ, so they have to raise their wages to attract more workers. Meanwhile, their 2 biggest clients, Bobby Bollocks and Wally Wanker, have each decided to build home studios to cut down on production costs. This creates vacancies in booking that XYZ is not accustomed to, and they are forced to offer special deals to get new clients in. Then tragedy strikes; XYZ's competition, "WXY Recording" across the street purchases the new SSL Series-K. In order to remain competetive, XYZ is forced to buy at least one K console for $1,000,000. Staff is thin and poorly trained on the new console, bookings are slow to come in, and eventually the overhead is too much for XYZ to bear. Chapter 11.

This hypothesis is based on actual studios I have recorded at in NY. (Names have been changed to protect the guilty.) To assume that DAW's are not hurting even the largest studios would be a bit hasty.

Are there benefits to be had from the big studio? Of course.
Is the quality of recorded music suffering from the DAW revolution? For the most part yes, but have faith that the cream will eventually rise.
Is it a shame to see so many affected by the DAW revolution? Most definitely.
Will DAW's replace major studios? Only the ones with their heads in the sand. To paraphrase Darwin, Adapt or Die.

The major studios that will thrive in the future are the ones putting DAW's in every room right now, the ones who admit that they don't have a monopoly on quality, and the ones who put more emphasis on "vibe" and service.

A gold plate is nice, but can it find you a hot egg-roll at 3am? I bet the staff had a little something to do with Abbey Road's success. Ok, I'm just babbling now.

Cheers,

Ive held my tongue for as long as I can stand it and I cant stands no more( to quote a guy with big forearms).

Lemme give you some background. I spent my formative years at a big studio, with a KILLER mic collection, rooms built by George Augsperger, an SSL, neve's, custom tridents, Studer, Sony, the works, but no DAW.

I think we are being too black and white and not enough shades of gray on this issue. You talk about cheap studios vs big studios.

I think if you can afford a REAL pro-tools system, you are pretty much a " bigger " studio.

To say that DAW's are killing big studios is I think off the mark. The lower end of the big studios were mostly killed off by the ADAT revolution, not the DAW revolution. Most of these studios really needed to go away anyhow, IMHO. People realized that cheaping out and doing the ADAT thing mostly did them no good, so the " good " big studios stayed in business, even though they made less because the band already blew some money on an ADAT experiment.

I see at least three main classes of studios:

1) The el-cheapo studio; a ton of these go up ( and come down ) every week here, just look in the classifieds under used music gear, these studios are in the under $50,000 total investment range ( usually well under), have jack squat for mics, no real accoustic work( egg-cartons glued to walls dont count), no doubt an Alesis 3630 compressor or two, an engineer with 4 billion tatoos, no brains left, and he always quotes " anything you can do at a big studio you can do here, look my mackie has 32 channels so its big "

2) The studios that CAN afford protools, but dont have hookers on tap, cottages, catering and all that. These are the guys hardest hit by the ADAT revolution. They will usually have some good to kickass accoustic treatment, a very workable mic collection, and the odd super duper compressor and mic pre, and a good vibe about them

3) the Mega studios. These guys have everything and then some, the " and then some " usually being more important than the music all too often.

I now have my own studio that sits between number 1 and number 2 ( no pun intended, dont EVEN ) I have spent EVERY penny on making the BEST out of each part of my signal chain and nothing else. My motto is " form follows function " the prettiest BMW looks stupid when a primer, bondo rusted Chevelle LS-6 blows its doors off. If you guys saw my place you would LAUGH!!!

That said I never have gotten such a good product before on those neve's or SSL's as I do here. I use a DAW if it can even be called that, the cheapest software you can get just about. I TOTALLY disagree with those posts putting DAW's down, I think that yes if you come in cold, never working at a studio in your life, maybe you never will get good sounds with a DAW. But having a good studio work in my background, I just apply the fundementals of engineering to the virtual world of the DAW.

with this stuff I have control, control CONTROL...a thing can sound killer in isolation on a good console, but if parts dont work together cuz of timing or whatever, yet even though the rest of the song is perfect, you are SCREWED!!!
not me, I just move the offending waveform, or fix it in some way. I am happy, my customers are happy, life is good.

sorry for the rant

Hi guys again,
I can't stop!
Aaron, I agree that if you do have a good pro-tools setup, you really are a "bigger studio". This discussion about home studio vs major studio is slightly different. The way I see it, if you own your own studio to your stuff and not for trying to make money by hiring it out, then it still comes in the realm of home studio..imo.

Some of the posts are basically saying that the style of music they do is the deciding factor in this argument. No, it isn't. Yes certain styles of music may demand better acoustics etc. (i.e. a pro studio), but that's not for all. Nor is the rule same for all engineers.

For example a good friend (producer) worked on some tracks for an US artist, but worked on it in UK (he's from the US). The original engineer who had worked with the rolling stones (won't mention his name) argued with him about how the sound was shaped etc. most notably about bass drum sound and volume. even though the drums were live, my friend wanted a certain sound, but the old git engineer "doesn't like that sound" and said it wasn't "right to do that!". So off he went (otherwords "fired2) got in a young cat from LA who had no experience in terms of formal studio training, but bags of self DAW work and came out with a great sound. I'm not saying this is the case all the time, but really engineers can be as bad if they don't understand the priority of the recording, which is the music. Hip-hop, in this case (which may not be your thing) demands a different ear than say recording classical. This may be an obvious statement, but something that seems to have been ignored in this debate.

mm

Originally posted by mightymike:
Hip-hop, in this case (which may not be your thing) demands a different ear than say recording classical. This may be an obvious statement, but something that seems to have been ignored in this debate.

mm

Yet another dimension
Seriously I have a friend who does all kinds of incredible stuff, for him and for hire using sonic foundry's acid. He can do all this neat things, that I cant do, but knows really jack about pro engineering. Well, every couple of months or so, he thinks he knows engineering, till he invariably gives up and brings it to me to mix. But truly, I cant do those neat things he does.

Yes!! Big ass live rooms, Good Monitors, Experienced engineers etc. are the way go!!

No argument here.Ive just seen some folks get by with less.This is not to say I'm superman and can work magic with crappo equipment because I just have too much to learn.

I have found though that a select few are "superhuman" and can overcome these limitations.But even superman should avoid mastering in his bedroom.

This is not saying that this is the best way.And even guys going for a rough lo- fi diy sound need to have their stuff mixed and mastered in a professional manner.

But musicians of yesteryear didnt even do multi tracking, and the music from that era is extremely rewarding to me.When I listen to certain rock or urban albums sometimes I almost wish they wouldve just rehearsed like crazy and done it live.

Electronic music is also great.Sometimes just listening to pop radio I'll hear a fluff tune and be impressed by the programming going on, but a little disapointed that a guys genious is shackled in that format.And guys like Josh Wink and Amon Tobin kill me.Not to mention some of the great hip hop producers.

Its no use worrying about this.I think were all in agreement of what the best situation is.

But also, the more you do something the better you get at it(potenially).So now while playing my instrument all day I also mix music I work on. Then I go back and critique it.Lots of times its not up to par and I redo it.And the more I and others tear it apat the better I become at it(potentially)

So I'll gain more experience in arranging, and writing, and recording things.And i feel this and other daw's are important so that when I am in a "real" studio I can work in a consistant and professional manner, or better.

Mightymike: << I think Greg, you underestimate the quality of the "home studio". >>

I don't think I do! Seeing as how I've had a home studio for nearly ten years. BTW, for the last five years the studio has been based around ProTools TDM. Having said this I've spent a lot of time and money on the acoustics of both rooms so I'm sure my home studio is not typical. If anyone is really interested in my studio you can see it at http://www.evelyn.co.uk

It's interesting that just because I don't agree with many of the other DAW users that people seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I am a DAW hater and only work in big studios. Every so often I do have to go to a big studio but over 95% of my work is on my DAW. So I know DAWs and home studios pretty well and I'm reasonably experienced in big studios. This experience has taught me how big the differences really are between a big studio and a fairly well specified home studio. How much bigger are these differences between a big studio and a host based DAW situated in someone's bedroom?

Robert: << I like diminished fifths way too much. >>

Are you mad? Augmented fourths are way better!

Greg

Now we are on to something. The chord for the moment. love this site!

Greg, I look forward to meeting you one day.
Do I hear a composer?

audiokid

Hi audiokid,

A little off topic but I've got an interesting "did you know":

Arguably one of the most interesting chords is the Tri-Tone. A chord made up of three notes with a minor third interval between each.

In the 1530's (if I remember correctly) there was a big meeting of the catholic church called the Council of Trent. Because of it's nastiness, the tri-tone was known at that time as the "Devil's Chord". The Council of Trent outlawed the tri-tone. Any composer using a tri-tone in thier music would be excomunicated, which at that time almost certainly meant death. I don't know if this law was ever repealed or whether it is just ignored.

So a warning to any christian composers out there, only use a tri-tone if you're absolutely sure that none of your family or friends are likely to stone you to death! By this I mean the use of small rocks, not an overdose of grass!

Greg

I didn't expect that...

NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Hehe, I knew one of you happenin guys would finish that for me... and from a YANKEE, no less!
Stay on your toes, mates.

Well, has everyone said their piece on this yet? (More like War and Peace, LOL)

Originally posted by mightymike:
The original engineer who had worked with the rolling stones (won't mention his name) argued with him about how the sound was shaped etc. most notably about bass drum sound and volume. even though the drums were live, my friend wanted a certain sound, but the old git engineer "doesn't like that sound" and said it wasn't "right to do that!". So off he went (otherwords "fired2) got in a young cat from LA who had no experience in terms of formal studio training, but bags of self DAW work and came out with a great sound.

This is an obvious case of not hiring the right guy for the job and nothing more. You wouldn't hire Bruce Sweiden to do the next Poison record would you? :roll:

Mark Plancke

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://soundtechrec…"]SoundTech Recording[/]="http://soundtechrec…"]SoundTech Recording[/]

[ February 09, 2001: Message edited by: mp@soundtechrecording.com ]

Ang1970 and MMazurek,

How dare you. One of you is from New Jersey, the other is from Illinois and you've got the absolute gall to quote Monty Python to an Englishman. There has got to be some rule against that. Where's the moderator when you need him? :)

Greg

"The big question is, will the majors control the e-commerce music sites like they do airwaves? If they do, then going through them will be the same as usual. Pretty much necessary for most of us unless we break the "mould" and start a revolution"

its impossible to control e-commerce, it goes against the very nature of the internet. ANYBODY can set up an e-commerce server if they want to.

"its the nut behind the wheel" -ed

personally i like working off a HD instead of a 2"reel. you use the tools that fit your hands, not just what everyone else uses.

and there is always a place for everyone, if youre worried about what the other guy is doing then your NOT thinking about what youre supposed to be doing.

"there are many ways to skin a cat" -have no idea who coined that phrase, probably someone who eats cats.

um, Greg, you may wanna check with your wife...but everything my years of music study led me to believe was that a tri-tone is not a chord...i tri-tone refers to the INTERVAL between a perfect 4th and 5th (ex. C-F#). the CHORD you described is normally referred to as diminished (ex. C-Eb-Gb-).

The story you tell sounds very familiar, but i thought it referred to the interval, not the chord (which i didn't think got any use until the Baroque era anyways...)

and more completely off topic...your wife is an absolutely amazing player! perhaps some folks here saw her story on 60 minutes a few years back...

I see a lot of very good points both for and against the current "home recording craze". I worked for years in many "pro" studios in Kansas City and Los Angeles, and have used a few of the different "pro" facilities here in Nashville. While I can "fly" a "pro" room, I found as an "artist" that it was worth it for me to start purchasing a home recording rig merely to stop worrying about the clock. With the advent of the recent digital gear and all, I still have gone out of my way to beef up my home rig to include some major league gear.(http://www.guidotoons.com/gear.html)
I just this week purchased a "pro" console (Trident 80) and a hard disk recorder(iZ Radar 24). I don't have a "professionally" constructed recording area, but my 21'X22' great room with an 18'vaulted ceiling is WAAAYYY bigger than alot of the "pro" rooms that I've ever worked in/used and sounds as good or better. My control room was "professionally" built, but designed by committee. This works very well for me and with the blessing of the Brentwood city fathers, will shortly be made available to the "public". I think, however, my best work was done when I did not have the time or equipment choices now made available to everyone. The point is....if the music/artist is great...you can run a 57 into a cassette deck and blow anybody's mind!!! Whew...too much coffee and free time!!!

Originally posted by mp@soundtechrecording.com:
Can someone please pass the rose coloured glasses. I think Zod is wearing his pair out.

Mark Plancke
[url="((deadlink))[/url]

BRILLIANT!

....

100% correct on the drum thing. It KILLS me that I've realized I'm only gonna get a 'decent' drum sound, not world class. (home studio guy)

I'm also trying to build a 'not your typical' home studio.

Greg, ANY helpful hints/suggestions would be MUCH appreciated, wink wink, say no more. (nice site you've got)

I don't think I could even hint to compete with a major studio, but I'll most likely be recording bands for the first time or two. More RAW sounding. I can get away with that with nice gear.

The kids that HAVE sprung some cash for bigger studios have been very intimidated. They're very comfortable experimenting at my house, relaxing, gawkin at all the knobs & lights, eatin' some chinese food or pizza, etc...and "hey, if you didn't like the bass tone, stop by sometime this week and we'll work on it some more"

I was wondering, how many well know engineers
and producers out there have daw's at home? you know a small recording studio. Someplace they can tinker, I've read a few articals from major artist that record at home then take their mixes to a large studio for overdubs & mix down. They take advantage of acoustic, monitors and out board gear. just wondering.

Yup. AAMOF, one "famous" dude I have worked with occasionally had an analog setup w/Neve 8068 and Studer A820 24 track. Sold the Neve, put the Studer in storage, got a PT rig with Pro Control, and did a record at home. He DID give it to Bruce Swedien to mix, though. :roll:

Rick Powell/Studio71

A microwave is not a restaurant yet this is precisely the kind of apples vs. oranges comparison being made. Before the magazine ad writers got their hands on the word "studio," it meant a performance space that allows one to make a faster, more reliable, and better sounding recording than just using an ordinary room. The first radio stations in the early '20s quickly figured out that they could improve the sound of their broadcasts drastically by creating dedicated studios.

The development of MIDI sequencing and sampling (the ONLY REAL music revolution we've had) meant that one could work in ordinary rooms although editing and mixing have been done in ordinary rooms from the very beginning in the 1920s.

For RECORDING, real studios will never go away because the whole point of a studio is having easier to use acoustics.

For successful entertainers, high-end commercial studio services will always be required because from time to time they require the ability to meet deadlines and work really fast no matter what it costs.

Certainly most mid-level rooms have been replaced by DAWs but there is still an awful lot of hype and B.S. exaggerating a DAW's capabilities.

"For RECORDING, real studios will never go away because the whole point of a studio is having easier to use acoustics."

i could see that for drums but with all the SoundReplacing going on these days you dont even need a space for drums anymore. all you need is nicely recorded samples. of course it sounds homogenized but i think people are not caring much about the technical side much anymore [and its still questionable that some care about the music side as well]

but i would still rather have my DAW over a 2" any day of the week [with the best possible lines in of course of money was no object]

Originally posted by e-cue:
While the old-school engineers are whinning about how protools lacks warmth, I'm mixing hit records. I love tracking in protools, mixing at home, and then booking a major studio & tweeking my mixes. I print about 4 mixes a day at the majors. This allows me to charge more, and still save my clients money.

I'm not sure old school cats are whining. An A/B comparison of sonics between mediums, and the making of hit records have nothing to do with each other. Have you listened to hit records lately?

I'll tell you what there is to whine about. It's not the Pro Tools per se, but the shitty little rooms (or lack of room) that many Pro Tools systems are in making it difficult to record well and hard to accurately monitor. I would gladly take Pro Tools in a great sounding room, over analog in a shitty sounding room. Oddly enough, the great sounding rooms in LA tend to have analog machines in them.

As to the comment about speed, it's nice to do 4 mixes in a day, and collect the bigger pay for time ratio by working faster. But to me, the end result is the most important goal. The paycheck just buys me more time to do what I love.

Mixerman

Firstly - great raves all. My first post here. I think I'm going to like this site :)

I've just built a studio for a client - It is what you would normally call a "Home Studio" because it is built at his home, BUT it is fully acoustically treated and has high end monitors (Genelec 1038A) so is it a pro studio?? BUT, we are starting with a Ramsa DA7 and a pentium III 800, so we are a Home Studio?? BUT we are buying AKG 414, AT4050 etc so are we a pro studio?? :D

you can check it out at this site "John Sayers Studio Update 6"
http://www.angelfire.com/al3/studio/index.htm

Mixerman said ..."the end result is the most important goal. The paycheck just buys me more time to do what I love." It's so true. I know a whole bunch of people that are getting what they need (read: PAYCHECK) from a home DAW, but they all tell me they wish they had my 2" as well. And a room big enough for drums. And killer mics. And a piano. And...... With the advent of all the pro/semipro gear crossing each others' path I don't know WHAT sounds "good" any more. But gimme a big, fat, juicy, hissy 2" anytime for a rock/r&b/funk/thrash/metal/hiphop.... session. I'm gonna dump those fat tracks to a Radar...but that's as much DAW as I think I'll want. I have a PT rig (3 years old...never used) and just can't bear to stop and tell the computer what to do when I'm creating. Never will. I guess I just wasn't made for these times....Now there's a song title for ya'!

"and just can't bear to stop and tell the computer what to do when I'm creating"

when did analog consoles quit making you have to stop and tell them to do something?

there is FAR more speed with digital, all the whining is just because they dont know how to use it.

i've printed to 2" and i've printed to hard disk. its the nut behind the wheel, not the medium.... techniques carry far greater sonic message than either analog or digital.

i dont make excuses with the equipment im using, i make excuses on stupid mistakes i made [damn, i shoulda done... it would have sounded so much better], and that includes blaming the room. there are TONS of great spaces all over the world and they certainly arent limited to studios.

To alphajerk.....
The "whining" is not about DAW/PT/etc...it's about where that crap has taken music. There are many fine tools out there to use, I simply feel the tools have taken over and are seriously undermining the talent pool for the future. Any idiot now can make "music" at home. I cannot name you one album that has come out in the past 5 years that was done on or manipulated by Pro Tools or any other workstation that I felt was artistically good. I looked forward for 3 years to hear the Walflowers' follow up to "Bringing Down the Horse". Their current release, Breach, is so protooled that I cannot bear to hear it. This cut and paste method of writing/reproducing music has watered down a once proud genre (Guitars/bass/drums...melodies/lyrics/taste/
talent...). I do not listen to the "poppy" (READ: 'nsync/Mariah/pop country) stuff coming out now so I thankfully don't have to hear the autotuned vocals and time perfected grooves. Gimme analog or gimme death! I am purchasing an iZ RADAR 24 only to manipulate the sessions I do quicker. It is a fine tool, but will not use it to "polish a turd". It will allow multiple takes to be made (through the 2") without the tape cost. That's all I need it to do. Pro Tools "experts" in this market (Nashville) are a dime a dozen. I do not need a PT rig to survive...skilled engineers, producers, writers and artists do not need these crutches to stand. A good song is a good song. A piece of crap is a piece of crap. (And if I hear that dumbass "garage band loop" on anything else I'm gonna burst into flames!) This is all just my opinion....I would be embarassed to have anyone find out my vocal had to be "fixed" yet younger artists cannot live without it! I hope and pray that real players/singers/writers will come back in vogue and leave the computer crap to the "Kraftwerks' and Devos'" in the future. If, as an "artist" you absolutely, positively have to rely on a computer to make you sound "good"...then I would suggest you go back to mowing lawns or flipping burgers or whatever it was you did for a living before you attempted to pursue a career in this business. Waaahhhh....

that post is just filled with bitterness and envy. not to mention filled with stereotypes and elitist babble, none of which are good traits. kinda reminds me of what the previous genereation said about rock and roll when it first became popular with the teens. didnt the same thing happen when tape started making its way into the studio???

i dont even own auto-tune, i dont "polish terds" [frankly too lazy and im not going to do it if the band cant take the time to get it right]

but if analog is what you are comfortable using, use it. just becuase people use digital doesnt make their music any less, only the musicians can do that.

Bitterness??? You bet. I don't like ANY of the mainstream crap that is out today.
Envy??? Hardly.
Whoa, Dude....
That post wasn't "pointed at you" it was just a response to how I feel regarding the MISUSE of these tools! I was not directing it "at you", but simply stating how I feel. Sorry if I ruffled yer feathers...I just think most of this stuff sounds like poo...MY OPINION.
Regards....
Guido

well count me in on the mainstream BS thats out today. right there with you. however with the cost involved with analog, im glad digital is around so i can afford to record music that isnt dependant on mainstream success.

okay, so maybe not envy. and i agree, the misuse is wretched [a la cher's hit]

Guido, check out any of little feats last few albums for some good music that had protools involved.

it's been 4 years since this thread has been posted on. I am wondering if people attitudes have changed..hehe

Not from where I am standing
and in alphajerk's defence,

... its the nut behind the wheel, not the medium....

I think that still holds true and will forever.