Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?

Subject: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: Lowden Jameswright
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:57 AM

A friend has been given as a birthday present a recording studio session. I own a Roland digital 8 track and have recorded local artists who tell me I do a damn good job - but at the prices I charge they probably would say that anyway!

I have never enjoyed the priveledge of going into a pro studio, but my son recorded a CD with his band some years ago and I was not too impressed with the mix - though I accept it can be a personal thing.
I'd like to know from those who have experience what they think to the results and how they might compare with the DIY alternative.

My main question is - can you get as good a result with a Roland-type digital recorder or is it worth the cash to visit the pro studio?

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 11:03 AM

Len and Barbara Berry as Portway Pedlars (Barbara did the setting for 'I wandered by a Brookside') did a cassette at a 'professional' studio - Trying to get the final mix right , they kept asking for the accompaniment to be reduced in volume . "But IF I take the backing down , the vocal is going to be VERY Exposed" was the reply from the engineer !

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: treewind
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 11:17 AM

You can get good or bad results with a Roland digital 8-track. That's not necessarily what makes the difference.

The biggest difference between a good studio and a typical home recording setup is usually the room acoustics. Proper room treatment isn't cheap, and bad room acoustics can't be tweaked with electronic processing, whatever anyone else tries to tell you. That applies to the tracking room and the mixing room, whether or not they are the same, and ideally they are different rooms because they have different requirements.

There's other factors too:
- the engineer's ears
- the engineers musical experience
- the microphones and monitoring speakers

If you get the chance, why no go along with your friend to his studio session and watch the session, ask questions and try to learn as much as you can - then you may be able to make even better recordings with your own kit.

I have recorded stuff at home and in a studio. I must say a big primary reason for using a studio was the record label attached to it - the advantages of distribution, review copies sent to magazines and broadcasters (and taken notice of) etc. But for me the advantages also included: another pair of ears; a more experienced engineer; better editing equipment.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: RTim
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 11:50 AM

It's NOT the equipment - it is the ENGINEER that matters - AND a good PRODUCER, ie. some who will say what is right or wrong, and someone whom you trust and believe in; your own ears can sometimes deceive you, or you don't really hear a great performance because you are too biased.

Never be frightened to do something more than once.

Tim Radford

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 01:57 PM

I'm with Treewind & R Tim all the way. You could also take some of your previous work to a good engineer and have her/him critique it with you. Would probably cost you about £50 for the studio time but in the end, you'll know if you're ready.

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:07 PM

I now have the best of both worlds.

Running protools on my mac laptop, with a good mic and an SE1 refexion filter (a 'studio' half the size of a wastepaper basket)! I can get very good results at home.

But I don't try to do it all myself - I still need fresh ears, and input from someone who does it for a living, who knows all the patches and tweaks and will tell me if I'm on the money or off beam.

Step one - do the guide tracks at home (do as many takes as you like to get the tempo and feel right).

Step two - take the tracks to the studio and replace with 'real' recordings.

Step three - take the real recodings home, and spend as long as you want editing and adding minor overdubs. (I did this step four times on the last album)

Step four - take the whole project back to the studio for mixing and mastering with full bells, whistles and independent lugholes.

Top quality at half the price

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 03:02 PM

I think to be honest - you have to be very clear in your own mind -about what you want to achieve. What you can afford to achieve, how much time and money you can devote to it.

Its just like any other job really. Paul simon once said , there are no problems that can't be sorted out in the studio - but most people have budgetary constraints. And also most people find recording a bit of a chore - recording's still a bit of a trainspotters world - people who get anal and anoraky about dropping in, decibels, vu meters and the like. So when you can't stand another bloody minute - its good to let some other character wear the headphones.

Tom's idea about doing rough demos at least on your home recording gear is very good.

I know a guy told me his band spent two years as Ringo Starr's tax loss in a studio - sessions supervised by George Martin etc. and no one ever intended to release the album. It was Ringo's accountant's idea to make the money go round another time - hiring out the studio that Ringo owned. the studio - big or small - needs to know you're not in a situation like that - you want product, and you want it in a limited time, and to a limited budget.

Unless you're in a situation with an large budget - you need a dogged plan. You need a competent guy on the desk - someone who knows his gear and has produced something approaching what you want in the past. Ask him bluntly if he can help you achieve what you want within the constraints.

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: GUEST,Jonny Sunshine
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 06:22 PM

Lowden,

You can get perfectly good results from a Roland multitrack - I've been using a VS1680 for over 5 years for lots of projects, my own and others. It has limitations compared to other options: I prefer to use a computer setup now, much more flexibility editing and mixing.

A lot depends what you want to do. Producing a vocal/ guitar demo
with a few overdubs is easy enough to do yourself, while recording a 6-piece band all at once to 24 tracks, with enough acoustic separation to "drop in" and replace parts requires a dedicated space and lots of specialist gear which you're only likely to get in a "proper" studio. you get what you pay for, but it's not the studio that makes the recording, it's the people inside.

The quality of a recording will depend on lots of things though- room acoustics, choice and positioning of mics, equipment used, monitoring, and - most crucially - the producer's ears. A chain is as strong as its weakest link.

If you are doing everything with just the 8-track, consider getting a mixer, however cheap or small, because it will probably have better mic preamps than the Roland. Mind out, once you start buying more gear it's a slippery slope...

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: Lowden Jameswright
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 07:19 AM

Thanks for the advice - basically I want to keep it to acoustic guitar and vocalist on first take, then add the odd one or two instruments afterwards; nothing too ambitious. I like to think I have a good ear, and a top local singer/guitar player keeps coming back for more and insists I should do it for a living, but I think he is over the top with his compliments.

I listen to recordings of myself and always pull a face - never satisfied. I'm not so sure a recording studio would bring out anything more for me to be honest.

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: Anne Lister
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 05:44 PM

You'll never know until you try, will you? But I'm with Tom Bliss, Anahata and all the others on this thread who have said (a) it's about having another pair of ears and (b) it's about the engineer. The best studio in the world can turn out a poor recording if the engineer isn't up to scratch, and the best engineer in the world can probably do wonders with limited equipment at home.

I notice you haven't said what the recording project is. If it's your own music... I've heard a lot of fairly poor self-produced albums which would have benefitted from those extra ears, but because the performers have had the equipment themselves they weren't about to pay fancy studio prices, oh no. They seem deaf to the imperfections and remarkably confident with what they've done, because they've done it. Despite all the problems. You may of course be an exception (there are of course some) and be able to concentrate on giving a good performance as well as getting a great recording at the same time, but I don't see the problem with taking the heat off yourself and handing over the engineering/production role to someone else for those first takes and then working on recording the added instruments yourself afterwards.

But it's really not a simple comparison between studio and home - so much depends on just who is twiddling those controls and what's at stake. And an external producer or engineer can sometimes come up with ideas which take your performance to new heights - if they're any good at their job, that is!

I wouldn't dismiss all studios because of one less-than-wonderful recording, and I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that no one else can do as good a job on my voice and guitar as I can.

Subject: RE: Recording - Pay Studio or DIY?
From: stallion
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 06:30 PM

The Engineer is everything, Rob Van Sante is brilliant.