? BULLSHIT ?

[nakedemperor]

I'm writing this post as a QUESTION, not a STATEMENT. I'm open to the possibility that I'm 100% wrong here.

------

I've been recording at home for a few years now, produced a demo and am currently working on my band's first album. I've bought VERY little gear, have never sat foot in a real studio and DO NOT pass myself off as an "engineer" of any quality.

The more I read about engineering, recording, mixing, mastering, etc. the more I get the feeling that 95% of everything I read is bullshit. Not "bullshit" as in "lies", just "bullshit" as in "this can't possibly matter to anyone in any practical, real-world application" (for what it's worth, I went to a fancy design school and had a very similar epiphany about 6 months into my first real job at an ad agency )

For example, while researching acoustic treatments and learning all about early reflections, comb-filtering and flutter echo, I saw that Auralex is selling "monitor decouplers" for $35 a pair. $35? It's a nickel's worth of fucking FOAM!

And as for "decoupling", can anyone say with a straight face that they can sit down blindfolded at a desk with 2 sets of monitors - one "decoupled" and one not - and repeatedly select the decoupled mix? I suppose some could, but what about the normal musician/studio guy that's been banging on drums since he was 15 and falls asleep to the sweet ring of tinnitis every night?

And in the bigger picture, does anyone believe that the general public is going to be able to hear that decoupler's improvement to a mix done through decoupled monitors as it blasts through their car stereo, EQ'd all to hell, with road noise, wind noise and a rusted muffler? Especially after it's been squished all to hell by the mastering engineer, then compressed again by the radio station before being transmitted over FM into a stock Chevy receiver ("now with MaXX Bass!")?

And what about those polls we see every now and then where two pieces of equipment at opposite ends of the price spectrum both come out winners in blind taste tests?

And what about - for example - that $1200 clock will "tighten up your mix". Where can I find an objective, quantified definition for "tight" in reference to a mix? All I've ever read is that "you'll know it when you hear it." That's what they say about pornography in Georgia...

The one argument to my gut feeling - and it may be true - is that a hundred 1% improvements add up to a major difference in the end. And obviously, there's a big difference between my recordings and "real" ones, but I still can't help but think that after reaching a certain level of proficiency, engineer are put 99% of their money and effort into tweaking an extra 5% of "quality" out of their recordings that nobody outside of that studio is EVER going to notice.

And if THAT'S true, then how FUTILE does this chase become when you stop to consider that most of the world's most beloved music was recorded with so little fidelity and even less gear? Almost makes you wonder if the most important performances in recording aren't the ones done sitting at the console, but the ones done sitting in front of the microphones. And even that's not worth a damn if the song sucks.

It's almost depressing to think about how the disparity of time, money and energy that went into producing Metallica's last album compared to their first. And look at the results. Maybe if some of the 99% of the producer's effort had gone into the songs instead of the sound...wait, I'm talking about St. Anger...NO effort went into the sound!!! So, shit...bad example, but you get my point

Like I said, I don't know. Just thinking out loud...

[;ivlunsdystf]

Why are there two threads of the same thing? Is the "BS" one a PG version?

[ryangeller]

This is an interesting post. To be quite honest; I read many of the topics posted on this board (and other boards for that matter), and although I have an opinion on each- I don?t bother responding 99% of the time. However, your post makes me itch with anticipation of a rebuttal.

Pretty much everything your referenced in your post can be grouped into spheres of technology and academic study. Let me stress this, as you didn?t mention aesthetics of gear or something relating to the economic landscape of the industry. Okay, so we?re talking about technology.

Why use a better clock? What the fuck is foam.. and why is anyone using that or anything else in the recording world? People have been making music forever, and it?s not like they just started recording it in the last 5 years. But why use elevators? Or computers? Why do I even need a clock? Well you need a clock because your ?audio? is no longer compressions of rarefactions of energy through a medium. Now your music is a bunch of 1?s and 0?s. Okay, but why do I need to be working in the digital realm? People used to make music on tape, and vinyl before that, etc. And the answer is that I don?t need to make music on my computer. But I can kiss any fine editing or complex processing goodbye. The medium will cost more for me to make my music, I?ll have more noise, etc. Why foam? Why bass traps? Foam is just foam. It?s a physical material with certain properties that allow it to absorb mid to high frequency content and transfer that energy to heat. That is a very powerful thing. Not the foam part?but that we as musicians and engineers are able to fix problems and change our environment so that we have a more musical space. Just because companies are trying to profit and jam so much foam up your ass that you can feel it tickling your nose does not mean that it?s bullshit. It just means that you have to be an intelligent, educated consumer. Are cars bullshit because there?s a consumer market and prices based on demand and a projected lifestyle image? So when better converters come out it?s not just a hype thing (although some companies will release products that are aimed to the largest group of potential buyers and these products may not be all their name claims). A higher sampling rate allows for a less steep input filter, fewer alias frequencies, and ad more accurate ?picture? of the original sound.

Okay enough on that. Basically what I?m trying to say with the whole technology thing is : it?s fucking great. Without technology we?d be living in caves and not communicating. On to academic quest?

A lot of this is linked to technology (obviously). And this understanding of our field allows us (or maybe I?m speaking too generally since you don?t seem to understand any of its importance) to make more accurate and processed decisions. Going back to the foam thing for a second?does putting auralex under your monitors make you a better mixer or recordist? Fuck no. Does knowing when you have to and when you don?t have to? Yes! Every room and situation is different. So does it make a difference? Well if a mixer is able to gain better perspective over his or her mix due to this ?treatment? then I can?t imagine anyone arguing the situation. My answer: this makes a big difference. It may do nothing for your workstation, although that?s something you need to understand and figure out. Some gear is very expensive and other is very cheap. Just because a mic preamp costs $3,000 doesn?t mean it sounds better than the $69 behringer or Mackie. You have to understand what is happening to the sound and why. Then you have to be able to hear the difference so that you can collect the tools you need for the least amount of money. If you?re buying the hype then you?re stupid one?not the company making $$ off of you- the home studio hobbyist. Gear does not equal god music. Just because Metallica uses X gear doesn?t mean anything. I could use an efficient artful paintbrush? and do absolutely nothing with it, while some little kid can draw a masterpiece with a number 2 pencil.

This is just becoming a rant, and I?m worried that my point isn?t coming across at all. Back to the painting this for a second.. thousands of years ago you could paint with sticks and some crushed berries. But there?s no fucking way that you would be able to animate the new Disney kids movie that way. In the same sense, the production and sound today is very different than it was 3 decades ago. And the reason for this sound is a whole discussion of psychology and societal trend. So these advancements and technology are important. And if you don?t buy into any of it or this extra 5% business then you can hop in your Chevy and blast your radioshack speakers of some low quality sound system that?s pumpin? out some mp3 mix cd that you compiled with limewire downloads while in your suit on the way to your 9 to 5 job behind a desk on the 12th floor.

[cdbabel]

For people who aren't engineers, the only improvements that really matter are on the side of what goes into your recording, not what comes out of your speakers. It takes years of training to develop an ear that can recognize most of the difference and the skills to change the sound accordingly. While every really does hear the difference, its a completely different matter about how to go about fixing things.

Good microphones, pre-amps and analogue to digital converters are the key for beginners. Spend the 300 to get the pre-amps and converts on the Presonus Firebox, from what I've listened to, its the best bang for the buck.

As far as techniques go, here are some articles at WikiRecording that should improve your recordings ten fold.

Microphone Techniques Part 1

Microphone Techniques part 2

Studio Acoustics

The first two are the most important. They should help you make a killer recording no matter what you are recording.

The third will explain why they hell people pay $35 for foam, what it does, and how you can essentially do the same with fiber glass and some fabric (with less control over the results).

[Seifer]

rule #1 of recording, kids:

1. nobody knows anything about anything; figure it out yourself

the guy who made this thead is starting to realize the truth, and the people that disagree with him are trying to comfort themselves into justifying all the money they spent on crap.

Guys who realize this kind of fade away and do their own thing, while the others will waste their time on the internet fighting about how you can only make anything sound good if you have a neve desk and a U87. You have to ignore these guys. Just figure it out. My theory is, a man is only as good as his recordings. He has to walk the walk. Whenever I see someone praise the latest hyped piece of $3,000 ass, I immediately find a recording made by that man and judge him. If it sucks, I laugh to myself as I look at my sm57 and my mackie, knowing I could easily make a better recording with them. This happens 99% of the time. It doesn't matter... these guys will continue to suck no matter what they buy, and the ones that figured it out will fool everybody because you can't tell when it's done right.

[RefD]

"if it sounds right..."

however, "the right tools for the job..."

finally, work within your budget, don't believe the hype and use your ears.

my first piece of advice would be to maximise your listening environment.

it's hard to use your ears if you're having to ignore stuff that isn't in the actual recording.

i got those Auralex MoPads, btw, and the difference is kinda negligible.

...mostly cos i have no bass traps and my monitors are less than a foot from a nice resonating hollow wall! :ar15:

[Roboburger]

... and DO NOT pass myself off as an "engineer" of any quality. ...

Most of the cats on this board shouldn't be calling themselves engineers- Hell, the forum is called TapeOp as in "Tape Operator"- music making for people who aren't engineers. There's no shame in just being an operator of audio gear. I don't consider myself an "Automotive Engineer" because I know how to drive a car. And I know how to drive a car really damn well. You should see me back a van and 14 foot trailer down a skinny alley. I have replaced Brake pads, Alternators, Starters, Radiators, Stereos and Belts and about every cosmetic detail you could name. I still don't consider myself an Automotive Engineer.

I feel the same about recording and live sound- And I DO have a degree in engineering, so Nyaah. Why some cats take a mic designed by one engineer, run it through a pre designed by another engineer, patch it into a system designed by another engineer... And then when it sounds good, the claim to be the engineer. Those other three cats did their job, and you're acting like you are the genius.

Here's the deal, if you can't hear a difference, or understand why there would be a difference, then don't worry about it- because there is no difference. I had a newbie ask me sometime last month what converters are the best- he was ready to put a grand on his credit card because he was sure from what he read that the convereters were what was keeping his tracks from being 'Phat'. I asked what he didn't like about the ones he had. He wasn't sure. A little more talk with him and I found out he was rapping into a SM58 clone. I got him to order a 70 buck Nady SDC from musicians friend and he agreed that that was a lot better than the SM58 clone.

You know what can't be taught from a book? Taste. Good Fucking Taste. It's obvious that Kevin Federline can go to an expensive studio to make his single, but since he has no taste he can't hear that his single sucks.

http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/ ... opoza.html

What I did with the rapper above was open up his musical palette to a new flavor on a very basic level- Kinda like meeting someone who has enjoyed only Chef Boyardee and has heard from a chef on TeeVee that he needs an Aktiebolaget Gas Accumulator stove. Ya wanna shake him and say, How about a 12 dollar box of imported Pasta first??

I myself have felt gear lust and thought I knew the differences between expensive stuff. I have parroted Bullshit and passed it off as knowledge. I now admit that I just don't know and have quashed the desire for stuff beyond my scope. I hope that I get better and can start hearing the differences and have the client base that would justify buying the more expensive stuff. F'rinstance: I tried recording at 88/24, and although I could hear a teeny difference on a stereo recording on an acoustic guitar, once I recorded six mics on a drumkit, two guitar overdubs, and three vocal tracks, I had to admit that at this point I just couldn't hear a difference in my room at my skill/gear level. I'm back to 44.1/16 until I aquire the taste to know the difference. (I do want to borrow or rent a distressor and see what I'm missing- after all, I can enjoy the difference between a dbx 160 and an alesis micro limiter and when to use one or the other...)

(Oh, and I do have the Auralex speaker decouplers. loud mixes rattled my shelf/wall and screwed up the midrange. There probably is/was a cheaper alternative, but the 30 bucks I spent at guitar center solved the problem, and look nicer than any rolls of carpeting that I could work up. Plus, it solved the problem quickly during a lunchbreak from a mix session that was important. I wouldn't have spent 60 bucks.)

My $0.02

And here's a link to some of the cuts recorded in my dingy l'il studio. Completly engineering free. I just operated the stuff.
http://www.foulcountry.com/artists/bouldercrest.htm
(As you can hear, kick drums and bass guitars are my weakness.)

[JGriffin]

Reffie makes a good point. "Magic fix" products won't alleviate every problem in your space, and if your space has problems like his does, this particular product won't help you. But that doesn't mean there isn't a scientific basis for its existence. And that doesn't mean that in a properly set-up environment an experienced engineer wouldn't hear the difference.

The problem is not that expensive mics or pres or high sampling rates or bass traps are "bullshit," it's that companies market these products to inexperienced engineers. It took me years to develop the critical listening skills to tell the difference between good and bad mic pres, real plates and cheap digital plate simulations, good and bad compressors. It takes experience to know how to listen for that stuff. If you can't hear the difference, then of course it's all gonna seem like bullshit. I still have a ways to go and I hope I can get there before my ears start failing due to old age! But there is stuff I notice now that I didn't ten, five, even two years ago. I am always learning more about listening. There's definitely guys out there who "hear" more than I do, because they're better at listening. And their mixes are generally better. Not because they have lots of expensive gewgaws, but because they can hear why they need the expensive gewgaws better than I can. The half-deaf drummer in your example, on the other hand, likely isn't listening quite so deliberately, and might have worn earplugs if he really wanted to continue to use his ears as precision tools.

[RefD]

aye.

i really need to fill that wall up with something.

[Professor]

For what it's worth, I've found there is a big and obvious difference in speakers that are coupled or decoupled from their supports - but it depends on the supports.
I really like to have my speakers directly coupled to a very heavy, dense surface like cement blocks or sand-filled columns. That will keep the speaker cabinet from vibrating which will allow the driver to move more freely which will improve the sound dramatically.
I learned that when I was in college and bought my first pair of entry-level B&W speakers. When they first arrived I put them on the 4"-thick sandstone fireplace mantle in my living room and they sounded great. Then my friend offered to loan me a pair of thin, tubular speaker stands, and when I moved the speakers to the stands, the sound changed for the worse. I went back and forth a few times and learned the difference, and then set about building some better speaker stands for myself.
And that would seem like a vote against the MoPads, but it's not. The MoPads serve a different purpose - they decouple your speakers from your desk so the desk doesn't vibrate and rattle. They make perfect sense when you understand where they are really useful. In my opinion they are bad for your sound because they allow the cabinet to vibrate more freely, but they are good if you have a rickety & noisy desk. So could you hear a difference with and without them - well that depends on whether you've got a solid or rickety desk.

And in the bigger picture, does anyone believe that the general public is going to be able to hear that decoupler's improvement to a mix done through decoupled monitors as it blasts through their car stereo, EQ'd all to hell, with road noise, wind noise and a rusted muffler? Especially after it's been squished all to hell by the mastering engineer, then compressed again by the radio station before being transmitted over FM into a stock Chevy receiver ("now with MaXX Bass!")?

At first blush that seems like a reasonable argument for not making huge efforts on quality, but it's important to remember that we shouldn't be mixing for the lowest common denominator. I mean, maybe some guys like to do that, but I've never found it to be fulfilling.
I mix with a target of "ear candy". I want to have all kinds of subtlety and nuance of character, color and texture to really engage my listeners. Am I always able to do this? No, of course not, especially in the context of recording student recitals and audition tapes - those are generally very raw and un-processed (mostly) for the obvious reasons. But when I can really dig in and create on a project I aim to make the guy with the $50k home stereo giddy about all that he can hear.
Is that all lost on the FM transmission and the stock Chevy parts, or when pushed through iTunes and played over little white earbuds? Yeah, of course it is. Does that mean I should slack off and not create the ear candy? No way man, even if there's only one or two folks who will ever hear the artistic bits, it's more important to feel that sense of accomplishment, and know that the product is as good as it can be. If the guy in the Chevy can't hear all the subtlety, well I want that to be his fault and not mine.

Cutting corners to say time, effort or money can be done in any field, and I'm sure it's really easy to feel justified in doing so. It takes more time & effort to frame a house using 3.5" wood screws instead of a nail-gun, but it makes the house stronger. It costs more to install double-pane vinyl windows than it does for single-pane aluminum, but it is more energy efficient. It costs more to have an editor & proof-reader go through that great American novel you just wrote before it is published, but it's worth it even those damn illiterate guys aren't able to appreciate the subtleties of the proper usage of "there", "their", and "they're".

-Jeremy

[toothpastefordinner]

Can we please have yet another discussion about how the music is more important than the recording and the gear?


OH MY GOD WAIT A SECOND, THE SONGWRITING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OBSCURE SHITTY LIMITERS?!?!?! MY MIND IS BLOWN, WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE

[inverseroom]

Can we please have yet another discussion about how the music is more important than the recording and the gear?


OH MY GOD WAIT A SECOND, THE SONGWRITING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OBSCURE SHITTY LIMITERS?!?!?! MY MIND IS BLOWN, WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE

UTFSF! Dude, there was TOTALLY a thread about that back in 2004.

[8th_note]

But when I can really dig in and create on a project I aim to make the guy with the $50k home stereo giddy about all that he can hear.

I happen to be one of the guys with the high end stereo - I was an audiophile long before I started recording. I set out with the goal of making recordings that I could play on my whacked out system and appreciate in that context. Even with modest gear, I've actually met that goal on a couple of my projects. I know I don't need to obsess over the details of my recordings as much as I do but I do it because it gives me satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment, and pride in my work.

I understand that nakedemporer was engaging in a bucket dumping rant but I feel sorry for him. If I felt that way I just wouldn't do this. That last 5% that nobody will notice is very important to me. And it turns out that people have noticed that last 5% and and have extended some very encouraging words. When the artist says, "Hey, I really didn't expect it to sound this good. Thanks, man", and then a few weeks later I get a call from one of his friends inquiring about doing a project, I figure that somebody sure as hell noticed.

[Fletcher]

99% of it is indeed bullshit... but that other 1% can get your ass out of the fire from time to time.

Decoupling speakers. Eh. I put Sorbathane under my nearfields [mostly so they wouldn't move] but the clarity the decoupling action added to the bass was palpable in my application. I was on the bonus plan.

The difference between cheap gear and not cheap gear can get to a point of diminishing returns. No bout a doubt it. This is truly a "game of inches" and every incremental inch is exponentially more expensive than the last inch. So, why do we move the extra inch? Because we [those of us who are engineers, those who have trained ears] find that good tools not only make the job a hell of a lot easier, but that we can also find a little more of the artist's emotion in our presentation of the artist's music.

There is no equipment that is a "magic bullet" by any stretch of the imagination... but there are pieces that will assist an educated user to make educated decisions that can be of assistance with achieving the artist's goal for their musical statement.

Off the shelf acoustic treatments are definitely closer to trying put a band-aid on a head wound to stop the bleeding than they are an actual surgical procedure... but how many people have access to an "affordable" acoustician? My wife happens to have an architecture degree from MIT and designed recording studios for over a decade... and I happened to have read her books and been part of a whole hell of a lot of studio builds... so when we built our control room there was something on the order of a little over $80,000.00 worth of design work that went into it... which we got for free. Something tells me that you don't have that luxury [though if you make me a good offer on the wife I'll be more than happy to pick up the shipping!!].

The fact that a $1,200 RODE mic can pass an "acceptable" signal is undeniable. Will a $4,500 Microtech Gefell be THAT much better? Maybe, maybe not. There are times when an $75- Shure 57 is absolutely far and away the best tool for the job. Does that mean we shouldn't try to surround ourselves with better tools when the possibility exists?

Clocks, converters, mic-pre's, microphones, compressors, equalizers, summing ITB or OTB... it's all just a means to an end. On the best of days an engineer will be able to assist the artist in communicating the emotion behind their song. On a bad day, the audio will interfere with the presentation of the song's emotion/content/meaning.

I have around 3 decades of being an engineer under my belt. Since High School I have worked one day out of the entertainment/music industry [I worked in a tire warehouse for a day... it was enough for me to never ever want a straight gig again as long as I live!!!]. 30 years ago a Tangent console and a U-87 was the height of existance... now it's not even remotely on my radar [the U-87 maybe... but an older one [pre-87A], in really good condition]... things change. Perspectives change. Clients change, your engineering style changes.

My clients come to me because they know that I'll be able to take their ideas out of the air and store them with some degree of their musical intention in tact, without getting in the way of their createive process. Other clients come to me because they know I can help them with writing and arranging things that will help make their music stronger. There is a distinct difference between the two types of clients but it's why I work [besides my day gig pimping audio hardware].

FWIW, the day gig allows me the ultimate luxury in the world of "non-A List engineers" [The Ed Cherneys, the Al Schmidts, George Massenburg, etc.]... I don't have to work with anyone who's music I don't like or who I don't particularly care for as a person. I had to do that for many, many many years... but now I don't and I'm seriously bloody grateful.

In the immortal words of Marvin Gaye... I'd seriously suggest you believe half of what you see and none of what you hear... and that includes this diatribe of crap.

Peace.

[kayagum]

I can't speak to the clocks issue- but given how many people have topics about clock related problems, maybe there's some value there.

As for the MoPads, I have them, and I think they're worth $35. But you have to consider my particular situation.

I have my cheap-ass Monitor Ones on a pair of heavy-duty 6 space road case (Grundorfs, so not entry level or SKB). A little isolation I figured would help so I wouldn't get resonant weirdness.

But the real value: the MoPads aim my monitors downward towards my listening position, in a way that is perfect for my setup. I'm actually a little surprised that you, as a design professional, didn't see the positioning feature of MoPads.

Sure, I can build my own. But if I built my own stands out of wood or something solid, just buying the tools (not to mention my time) would make it more trouble for me than $35. If I took a block of foam and bought an electric knife (or tried to find one at an estate sale), it would take more than $35 worth of effort. I could also use a computer mouse pad or neoprene from the local junk store (which sells bins of the stuff), but it wouldn't aim.

Bottom line: I like them, and I thought they were worth $35. You don't like them, you don't think they're worth $35, you don't have to buy them or recommend them. I don't need to pay $1200 for a Big Ben clock, but I don't really need a digital clock the way I work. But obviously others are willing to spend that.

I'm far from the most technically knoweldgeable person on this board, but I can speak to pricing psychology with some authority, given I do pricing analysis for a Fortune 100 bank. If it works for me, it works for me. If it works for someone else, and they're willing to pay for it, who am I to argue? That's why "YMMV" is used on this board so often. (Thanks Fletcher!)