An argument for the 'real' studio

[@?,*???&?]

From the L.A. Times today:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-l ... 43046139=1

There is an argument that could be made that it is not the buying of the gear that is an end in itself, but rather releasing 'legitimate' product as an end result.

Use a 'real' because they have the gear, work modestly at home. It's cheaper.

[losthighway]

Wait. I don't understand. Use a real studio for their gear, or work modestly at home on the cheap. I don't know which you're advocating.

I do agree that gear is not an end in itself. This is hard to keep in perspective. Releasing product, or music, is absolutely and end. In addition to being musical and working on something.

I like Albini's suggestion in tape op book 2, that an unfinished album is nothing.

[Jay Reynolds]

Would you make the same argument about buying a hammer, or a miter box, or a ladder, or paint brushes? I think your idea has more to do with intent than anything else. For instance, we cleaned out our garage yesterday and I moved a bike rack over about three feet, using my own ladder and screw-shooter. Should I have sold those tools and hired a contractor to do the work? How is that cost effective?
How about this: I'm currently working on a remix for submission as part of a remix contest. The prize is a modded keyboard, not cash. If I didn't have the ability to work on this at home on my own, I'd be underwater on this project already. And this isn't a completely ITB remix. I've bounced audio through external processors and added a few tracks of sax and melodica.
We'd all like to pretend that none of us have ever spent a dime on gear that wasn't 100% covered by our current billable hours. But we all know that isn't true. But does that make everyone here crassly materialistic? Considering the stupid crap that I see "the civilians" buying, I think the answer is probably not.

[;ivlunsdystf]

So let me get this straight: @?,*???&? is awesome and everybody else sucks?

[@?,*???&?]

For instance, we cleaned out our garage yesterday and I moved a bike rack over about three feet, using my own ladder and screw-shooter. Should I have sold those tools and hired a contractor to do the work? How is that cost effective?

You have a goal in sight. The tools will help you achieve that goal. Too many buy the tools with no goal in mind. They will never work toward an end result. Buying the tools becomes a distraction to what they want- or, according to the article, all we want are the material aspects of the tools the themselves.

Is this simply a result of what is being marketed?

[norton]

@?,*???&?

what the hell is going on in your avatar? a bird eating spider?? i need to see more.

[honkyjonk]

So you're advocating that a small minority of people keep the tools of gluttony, and the rest of people pay a small fee to document their fully realized goal by using the tools of gluttony owned by the few?

I'm only partly kidding.

Whatever you're saying Jeff, I'd rather have a few tools, however modest, and a lot of time to make some art whatever it is. I agree that gear addiction totally gets in the way of finishing things. I am guilty father Jeff. I'll go say seven hail marys now.

[rwc]

the great part of a real studio is that there are NO EXCUSES

on BOTH sides of the glass

at a great studio, excluding the limits of technology, the sky is the limit in terms of how you work.

it is an occasion, and people with any skill or experience tend to RISE to an occasion

renting a place with a nice desk, a greatly treated room, 15-30 great microphones and getting a bunch done in a day is much cheaper than a PTHD setup anyway.

[@?,*???&?]

@?,*???&?

what the hell is going on in your avatar? a bird eating spider?? i need to see more.

Yes. Came across this on some news service this morning. Only in Australia!!! I hear they have footlong beetles in New Zealand.

[b3groover]

This is what has been working for me lately: Track at home, paying very close attention to getting the best possible sound I can on each source. Apply little, if any, signal processing (maybe a touch of compression on the overheads before the A/D, but usually not). Get everything edited, ready to go. Make some "reference mixes" on my system.

Take the tracks to the professional studio with all the great outboard gear and the brilliant engineer. Mix and master there.

Result? Huge savings, great sound. Works for me.

[losthighway]

While it's true: I spend thousands of dollars upgrading my studio every year.

I still believe people can make great sounding records with solid project studio gear. A lot of these 'real' studios can rack up a bill in four days that could buy you an API 3124 and have some dough left to spend.

Last time I made a record in someone else's studio it took seven days, and it would have been better with ten.

There is a time to have someone else record you; but what signifies a real studio. Someone said something about getting away from Pro Tools HD, but that's what a lot of expensive studios use.

There is a studio in my city that charges 4 bills a day. They have pro tools and a big Sony board. A nice drum room. Their only outboard preamps are a DBX and a Manley Voxbox. They refuse to have a kick drum sound that's not a trigger because 'real' kick drums are too inconsistent. They only like SM57 on electric guitar. They do not have any ribbon mics. Everything they do sounds the same. They keep putting out Myspace bulletins that kids need to save money to come record at their 'real' studio and stop spending it in more affordable ones like mine.

I love my 'fake' studio. A lot of local bands do too.

[@?,*???&?]

That studio you talk about could be a great facility for you to freelance in AND engineer your own recordings. If you are competent as an engineer, rent the studio- not their engineer. Then you save the $$$ not having to buy all the great mics you'd like to be recording with.

[Mystic Steamship Co.]

How is that really saving money though? If I rent a studio with a u67 for 2 days at $500, I would have spent $1000, and have nothing except some awesome sounding vocals. For $6000 I can buy that u67 and not have to go back there, instead using my own mic to record those awesome vocals. I'd choose option B personally because in the long run I'm making more money, AND I get to own something of value.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

what difference does where and how a record is made matter? so long as they turn out well?

[b3groover]

That studio you talk about could be a great facility for you to freelance in AND engineer your own recordings. If you are competent as an engineer, rent the studio- not their engineer. Then you save the $$$ not having to buy all the great mics you'd like to be recording with.

Who says I'm buying great mics? I used Audio Technica ATM450s, modified MXLs, and some Shures on our last record and everything turned out great.

I agree that it doesn't really matter where you record. Are you conveying what you wanted to convey through the songs? Then you've succeeded. Motown was a dirt floor basement!