try an RO search for "rack crap" .....lol! https://recording.o…

pcrecord Marco, you are missing the real issue. The way music is consumed has had a seismic change that means most people can't tell what good sound is :). Your listening (buying) audience is aurally challenged. We who remember stand alone individual piece stereo systems with standing speakers etc... we remember. These ones are listening to tiny speakers or at best bass weighted headphones.. I don't know what to say mate.. it is what it is. Unless there is a major swing back the other way, you are working for yourself and the few that know.

Makzimia, post: 462243, member: 48344 wrote: pcrecord Marco, you are missing the real issue. The way music is consumed has had a seismic change that means most people can't tell what good sound is :). Your listening (buying) audience is aurally challenged. We who remember stand alone individual piece stereo systems with standing speakers etc... we remember. These ones are listening to tiny speakers or at best bass weighted headphones.. I don't know what to say mate.. it is what it is. Unless there is a major swing back the other way, you are working for yourself and the few that know.

You're right.. The industry is very different, I didn't want to go cry on the low sells tho..

My interest is to learn what others would do if they would need to educate someone on what good sounding is..
I guess I might do a video about it.. Some exercices and explaination.. but I frankly don't know where to start.. ;)

pcrecord Marco,

I once described the difference between modem internet and broadband internet to my father, he was in his 80s. I used the analogy of emptying a bucket of water out through a single small hole for modems, and pouring out the whole bucket for broadband. Audio is as we know all about capturing what our ears hear as best we can. The better the source and the capture, the better the sound. If I stick a hose attached to a funnel into your ear and talk into it, it sounds like crap. If I just talk near it, you hear me clearly. I don't know, maybe start there?.

Cheers,

Tony

it wasn't home recording that killed the small recording facility. i was there. got a tee shirt and a hat!

trends in the recording industry have always followed trends in broadcasting. as long as there is TV and movies there will be a few major recording studios.

at one time radio was the only thing you could listen to in your car. when AM was King there was a huge demand for 3 minute long content and a lot of independent producers / studios sprung up to meet the demand not only for records to play but also the ad content that drove the whole enchilada. just in the Bay Area where i grew up several major independent studios were established in the 60's to fill the need.

the same thing was happening in LA, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Nashville / Memphis, Miami, Huston and other urban centers. a thriving industry manufacturing professional recording equipment sprung up. many studios would buy new gear every year even if they didn't need it just to avoid paying income tax. the majors all wanted to have the latest gear to attract clientele. they could buy new gear and write it off or they could pay income tax. this created and huge market for cheap new and used professional recording gear that we all enjoyed well into the early 2000's (once i bought an LA 2A for $50).

this abundance of equipment and people who knew how to service it created an opportunity for a lot of small operators to open small independent rooms that were well equipped. things were pretty good for the business right up to the point where a person could actually run 16 tracks on a computer.

adding insult to injury for radio, cassettes, CDs, talk radio, MTV all ate into the audience share the AM top 40 powerhouse stations had. so the demise of AM /FM music formats, home studios, computers ... all contributed to there being fewer independent studios.

Kurt Foster, post: 462246, member: 7836 wrote: (once i bought an LA 2A for $50).

Man. Thats absolutely insane!

pcrecord, post: 462239, member: 46460 wrote: If you were with a beginner, what would be your way of helping him/her to learn such a subjective skill ?

If i were in person id show them good and bad mixes on a good system, in a good room. I would also a/b the full fidelity mix with the YouTube and mp3 at different bit rates. Once you hear degradation its difficult to unhear it. If i wasnt in person, id make full fidelity files available along with the soundcloud and youtube so people can experience the difference. Maybe its from my years of messsing around but i seem to be able to hear pretty subtle differences even on crappy cell phones. Its a matter of learning what to listen for and you can hear it on most listening devices.

I think streaming and file sharing had a big contribution to the collapse of big label budgets.

That said, i think coming off such an immense peak of the industry, its easy to feel like we are in a slump. Things like 500k recording budgets are really over the top and apparently not sustainable.

To be an engineer charging 1k a day for your services plus 1k a day for your studio is a crazy amount of cash. Thats what phil was getting at normandy for a while.

I think that good gear is just way overpriced right now. 4k for a pultec eq, which is a circuit designed in the 1950s just seems like extortion, lol. There will likely be a place for quality analog gear for a while, but i think companies are largely cashing in whike they can, as digital everything seems to be taking over.

I also think people at home arent as committed to getting truly great performances from themselves. Performance is one of the biggest contributors to sonic quality. James Taylor's Hourglass is a classic example of a well done recording, it was done on a yamaha 02r or maybe even 01r, in a rented house on the Martha's Vineyard island.

What i found intersting working at normandy was we had a few choice peices but some project level gear too. Often the results were not what youd expect from looking at the pictures of the studio, which was a full size mid-level commercial place. I think it disappointed some people since the results were mediocore, and they attribute big studio with big studio sound. Ive heard project studio recordings sound better than ours, and that includes the vets like phil who had several gold an platinum stuff. Granted those hits were done in the same room but bsck when the ssl and ua and pultecs and studers were there.

I think much of it comes to performance, because the pro mucisians sound pro/commercial even on the mackie d8b at the other studio.

I think teaching a beginner how to assess performance would be a great way into improving sound.

Even pitch correctedvocals, while on key, just dont have the same inflection or emotion that they would if sung on key. I think the same applies to instruments as well. A heavily edited drum track just doesn't have the vibe and sonic quality a well performed one does. I think this leads to alot of lackluster recordings.

To me it's mostly how much time you spend and skill. Yes big budget albums have great gear,.. But they also have to budget to get great performances. Or good enough so that skilled engineers can fix it. Everyone knows that Taylor Swift can't sing but man the vocals on her albums sound killer. It's the skill, experience and more importantly the budget for the time it takes to make that happen which will produce something pro. On the other side of things great sounding albums had great performers that were well rehearsed and played the songs front to back. Or at the very least a great engineer who could splice 40 drum tracks into one like the guy that did Metallicas Black Album..

Chris Perra, post: 462250, member: 48232 wrote: great sounding albums had great performers that were well rehearsed and played the songs front to back. Or at the very least a great engineer who could splice 40 drum tracks into one like the guy that did Metallicas Black Album..

Bob Rock ...... Lars said, "That's the best drum track I never played" .....

"sounds good" and "good sound" aren't synonymous. it's possible to make horrible records in the best studios. right now people are making records that are finding their way to the top of the "charts" (whatever they are these days) on very cheap gear. many have spent thousands and thousands on recording gear and can't make decent sounding records.

it's easy to tell if a piece of gear is "rack crap" or not. military spec is a good place to start. robust power supplies running high volt rails is another tell especially when it comes to mic pres. through the hole construction (military spec) allows a piece to be repaired or modified in the future. surface mount tech is cheap and great for getting a product to the market but in most cases as the components age they fail and it's not really possible to replace the caps on a robot stuffed surface mounted board.

if all a person wants is some gear that will last 5 years the cheap stuff should be fine. if you want investment grade gear that you can re sell in 15 or 20 years buy the high end and pray you choose the right stuff to invest in.

i am encouraged with the new crop of products that are coming to market. i think the marketers are finally getting it right. WARM AUDIO and the TASCAM or SOUNDCRAFT mixers are perfect examples. classic designs on a budget, done reasonably well. form factor correct products that deliver the "thing" the piece is noted for .... just as good? no but real close. investment grade? perhaps not ... but with a few grand a person can get a very decent front end. for another grand and you have a really nice porta studio or interface for a DAW with plenty of easy to use inputs for recording large live ensemble performances, which is the easiest way to make good records.

imo, there's really no reason to go to the high end any more unless you are running a high end production facility. these days, there is no reason a person couldn't make a great record with this very inexpensive gear.

now a home recordist can concentrate their energy towards getting into larger rooms and getting the acoustics right and recording live off the floor with the cash saved on boutique equipment. they didn't have toys like that when i was a kid ...... o_O

Chris Perra, post: 462250, member: 48232 wrote: To me it's mostly how much time you spend and skill. Yes big budget albums have great gear,.. But they also have to budget to get great performances. Or good enough so that skilled engineers can fix it. Everyone knows that Taylor Swift can't sing but man the vocals on her albums sound killer. It's the skill, experience and more importantly the budget for the time it takes to make that happen which will produce something pro. On the other side of things great sounding albums had great performers that were well rehearsed and played the songs front to back. Or at the very least a great engineer who could splice 40 drum tracks into one like the guy that did Metallicas Black Album..

Yeah man, ive heard in interviews with big name guys moving thier gear into their home, going ITB, moving to cheaper cities/locations to have a large studio, and doing "all in" budgets, in an effort to maximize the amount of time they have to work on the record, and compensate for shrinking label budgets.

It also seems like labels are trying to keep their "stars" around much longer. What would have been a one hit wonder in the 90s, has become a tenured cash cow now. Taylor Swift is a perfect example, or Beiber. No way they would have been supported this long back then.

Kurt Foster, post: 462251, member: 7836 wrote: Bob Rock ...... Lars said, "That's the best drum track I never played" .....

Lol Great quote!

Kurt Foster, post: 462251, member: 7836 wrote: "sounds good" and "good sound" aren't synonymous.

So true. As someone whos done alot of punk and metal stuff, this is something i know well. Sometimes energy is more important. Sometimes people actually want raw sounds. Ive always gravitated personally towards good sounds even in aggressive music.

Kurt Foster, post: 462251, member: 7836 wrote: imo, there's really no reason to go to the high end any more unless you are running a high end production facility.

Whats your opinion about having say a few high end peices and the rest of the stuff more at the warm audio ect level?

Ive heard a/b of golden age neve vs real neve, and THU amp sims vs the real thing, and its imho 90% close or even closer. Literally alot of real amps sounds worse than some of the best sims.

I just wonder if a 2k neve 1073, is really that much more than an 800$ clone, in the mid to long term. Im on the fence. Im in a weird position right now where time is money for me, so for me its a matter of waiting some extra time to get more money. Not sure how long it will be like this. Im curious about your thoughts both in general and in my case.

Digital hardware and software is a different methodology imho since you know its got an expiration date.

Kurt Foster, post: 462251, member: 7836 wrote: now a home recordist can concentrate their energy towards getting into larger rooms and getting the acoustics right and recording live off the floor with the cash saved on boutique equipment. they didn't have toys like that when i was a kid ...... o_O

When you were a kid the toys said studer and pultec!!!! Lol.

I truly hope people continue to invest in better rooms. I must have given advice to hundreds of home studio people. Rods book was ended up being a surprising fork in the road for me. Ive probably made about equal or more from studio building and acoustics than i have engineering. Live sound paid me much more beer than acoustics did tho. Ive become somewhat of a journeyman at both engineering and acoustics.

I have a feeling DSP and room correction might sway people away from good ol physics and room design... As long as electric drums dont get as fun as acoustic drums, acousticians will have a job keeping the neighbors happy.

There's a number of vids on youtube, recorded in mono, outside, with one or two mics, no high-end gear, just a recorder.

They sound fantastic. The main reason is: the musicians as well as the recordist are laid-back, experienced and knowledgeable. Plus, they enjoy what they are doing.

It's not the gear, it's what you do with it.

I own the worst EQ ever, according to the internets. The manufacturer stopped production because sales plummeted after al this gossip. The reason is, nobody RTFM. It's fine, unless you connect it's balanced in/outs to unbalanced gear with the wrong cable. In that case, you get distortion and noise. And since it is a digital EQ, it's not very good to up the bass +12 dB. Both are clearly explained in the manual.

The opinion that it's the worst EQ ever, comes from a bunch of idiots. And that's what happens a lot with opinions on the net. You now what's often said about opinions...

My reading of quality is that you need to have a decent understanding of what real things sound like that you can refer to. I think perhaps the simplest ones are the really long lasting instruments like piano, steel strung guitar, a bog standard real drum kit of any price or quality, a saxophone, a trumpet, a flute and an organ, as in church type organ. Pop since the 60s has then taken these sounds and tinkered, but younger people are only exposed to tinkered sounds, so have no backstop as a kind of standard.

Grand pianos since Robbie williams Angels have started to become processed, synthesised and tweaked, and some are quite a long way from the real thing, so younger folk could be excused thinking this is 'normal'. Saxophones being a pet hate. Since careless whisper and Baker Street, we've got a newer sound, one that is not quite tenor, not quite alto and always has heavy reverb and severe eq, becoming a new 'norm'. They are not aware of what has been eq'd for a particular track, so would view the real sound as unpleasant maybe? In the 60s and 70s we had loads of very different organ sounds. Church, then Hammond, then the transistor stuff, the Farfisas and brilliant others. Now we seem to have just Hammond as a sound with maybe a couple of presets. Once you get to guitars the same things happen. We now get guitar sounds that the one kicking about in the studio could never have produced. I've done a couple of tracks featuring guitars recently. The trouble is I've not even picked up a guitar, and the ones I have hanging on the wall don't sound like my recording, and worse, I couldn't play what I recorded. Does it sound like a real guitar? Maybe in quality yes but not at all in realism. I know because I'm ancient, but the young people don't.

I'm an old examiner and writer for UK music exams and I still am in on the social media groups for teachers newly qualified teaching it and my mouth drops. I KNOW what will get good marks, but they council students towards totally inappropriate source material to record. When I've tried to suggest changes, they jump on me heavily and tell me it has to be contemporary and relevant, but their products are terrible because they are judged on realism, quality, tone/timbre, capture, avoidance of noise, frequency response choices and quality above all is the entire point. They ask crazy questions about using bit reduction as an effect, or adding noise to recordings, or adding clicks and pops to simulate reality, and just cannot see these features as reducing quality, which is marked. Taking a good recording and making it technically worse, but more contemporary in style is simply not important. Heavy band eq might be modern, but it's not better, at least it isn't from an exam perspective. They get marks for mic placement, but if the result sounds like the mic is twenty feet away inside a cardboard box, they cannot understand the grades they get and shout loudly. I wish I could make them realise that a dodgy voice and cheap guitar recorded really well would get the best marks, and a superb voice rung dry with auto tune and compression and a Martin acoustic swamped in effects will score badly. These teachers just don't get the word quality at all, he are very bright and educated.

Thanks Paul and the others.
It gives me some ideas of how I can attack this.
I'm trying to find a good angle and I think you helped me greatly.
What is sounding naturally good and what is considered sounding good once mixed or processed is very different.
It is also very different depending on music styles. I need to keep this in mind for when I start to work on this..

I guess I should let people hear what a Raw track is suppose to sound like and show a few mix possibilities.
I'm sure it will end with a series of videos and not just one !

I don't pretend being able to reach the mass with this, my channel is too small.. but if I can help a few, it's going to be a success ;)