GUEST,Val, I was making a valid suggestion for an alternate way of producing a CD, one that many musicians are using successfully in these modern times. And you haul off and attack what I posted in a most rude and patronizing manner, apparently making the automatic assumption that I'm some kind of fool.

My remark about "not too bright" might have been a bit over the top and I apologize for that. After all, all things being equal, there are those who may not want to take the time to learn to use the equipment or may want the experience of recording in a professional studio with an engineer behind the glass manipulating a couple of acres of sliders for a few hundred dollar$ per hour. It is indeed interesting.

I much prefer my way. Your mileage may vary.

And my apologies especially to Tabster. I was not aware of your prior recording experience, and that you have probably already considered the possible alternatives.

But as to my choice of methods. First of all, my qualifications. I've been involved with music for some 50 years now, and that involves considerable formal training in music schools and conservatories. So obviously I know that Art is not just a matter of having the right equipment. But I also know that the right equipment helps.

I have been a professional performer (television, concerts, clubs, coffeehouses, and folk festivals) for most of my life. I've spent time in recording studios, both recording my own stuff and as a studio musician for other performers. I know the drill. And I've also picked up on a few of the negative aspects of recording in a studio. Although I haven't actually worked as a recording engineer, I worked in radio broadcasting for a number of years. Part of my broadcasting job included writing, voicing, and producing commercials. I have used all types of recording equipment, from the old wire recorders, to open-reel tape recorders (including studio Ampexes), to cassette recorders of all qualities, and lately, digital recorders. I have used all kinds of microphones, I know the characteristics of the different kinds, and I know a great deal about such things as mic placement, because I've been doing it for years.

The equipment I have recently purchased was thoroughly researched before I rejected a number of options, decided on what to buy, and pulled out the credit card. The MXL "Pro Pac Plus" consists of two condenser microphones, one large diaphragm, especially good for voice (frequency response 20 Hz to 20 kHz), and a smaller diaphragm tubular mic tailored for recording "quick attack" instruments such as pianos, drums—and acoustic guitars (30 Hz to 20 kHz). The pack comes with shock mounts for both mics, wind screens if necessary, and two 15' cables with XLR connectors. I still have to purchase a couple of mic stands and a pop filter. There are indeed far more expensive mics on the market, but relatively inexpensive though these may be, I've heard (with fairly sophisticated and experienced ears) what others have done with this set and I know they are up to the job. Experience has demonstrated that the magnitude of the price tag is not always a reliable indication of the quality of the microphone. Ears, on the other hand. . . .

The Lexicon Omega "Desktop Recording Studio" is not a particularly impressive-looking unit—until you start reading the specifications and features. It is specifically for use with an adequate home computer and it comes with its own software package. I won't bore you with the details. If you're curious, google "Lexicon Omega" and read.

I have two computers, a laptop and a desktop, either of which will work fine with the Omega. And the Audio-Technical ATH-M50 monitor headphones are not the little ear-buds you get with your iPod. "Exceptionally accurate response combined with long-wearing comfort; 45mm large-aperture drivers with neodymium magnet system for ultra-efficient signal transfer; frequency response: 15hz-28khz." Plus other dandy features. I'm quite used to wearing "cans" and can tell quality when I hear it. Well worth the price.

There is much more elaborate equipment on the market, but since my purpose is to record just my voice and my acoustic (classical) guitar, once I have everything plugged in and turned on, mics properly placed, and levels set, all I need do is to put my mouse pointer on "Record," click it, and start playing and singing. I think my number of hands is adequate for the job. After all, I've done it many times before with equipment far more complicated to run.

I've had other people record me with their digital equipment, and my ears—quite familiar with what to listen for—have been pleasantly impressed by the results. And a couple of people have offered to assist my efforts by recording me on their equipment, but I prefer to do it myself for a number of reasons. First, is that, as I say, I have worked with recording engineers who are "specialist artists" with, presumably very discriminating ears, and I've found many of them to be easily satisfied with far less than what would satisfy me. I prefer to strive to work up to my own standards, thank you.

And with the home recording equipment (most definitely not—as it was so contemptuously put—"toys," considering the actual capability of this equipment, and the number of well-known and respected people who are turning out commercial CDs with it), one has the luxury of doing this on one's own time and being able to take the time to get it right, without the kind of pressure that comes with knowing that retakes eat up expensive studio time. Roger McGuinn noted this on his DVD, and I have felt this kind of pressure myself. It is not conducive to the best performances on the eventual recording.

As to the surroundings and the problem of ambient noise ("The occasional toilet flush, distractions from family. . . ."), I live in a large apartment (living room, bedroom, formal dining room, large kitchen, two baths, and two "bonus rooms," one of which is my office, where my desktop computer resides). It is a quiet building in a quiet neighborhood. I hear a car horn about once every month or so. The fellow in the apartment directly above ours is out of town on business for weeks at a time, and my wife works several days a week as do most of the other tenants, so I am often the only one in the building. Recently (with my recording project in mind) I have been listening carefully for all kinds of background noise. I have also turned on the Zoom H2, stayed quiet myself, and let it record whatever it hears. As I say, this is a very quiet building. If, for example, I'm recording a song and the phone should ring, I can just re-record. A little irritation perhaps, but nothing out of pocket. Other tests show no odd reverbs or other problems with the room, and if I encounter any, they're easy enough to fix—inexpensively.

I can do it my way, on my schedule, and make certain that it's up to my standards. I will burn test CDs, listen to them carefully on my stereo equipment (two tweeters, four midrange speakers, and a sub-woofer), and, of course, solicit the opinions of others whom I know to be knowledgable, critical, and frank, not just those who'll tell me "Gee, that's great!" But—I will be the final judge.

Using one's own judgment is an essential ingredient in what makes Art.

But GUEST,Val, the vociferous nature of your comments about my suggested alternative to using a professional recording studio makes me think of the kind of response I might expect to hear from a recording engineer who has noted the sudden recent increase in high quality "guerilla" home recording and feels his career as a recording engineer beginning to circle the drain.

Don Firth