my recordings are too obviously "home-studio"
Home > Home Recording Forum > Recording Techniques > my recordings are too obviously "home-studio"
Posted on Sep 24, 2008 08:45 am
skeg0
www.dorian-music.co.uk
Member Since: Apr 04, 2008
Hello everyone,
Recently our new band manager told me it was obvious my recordings are home recordings. Im trying to add and improve my studio all the time and thought I had made a lot of progress so those words were a bit of a blow! Now i want to know what the next important things for me to add into my rig should be (money is tight so cant get everything!)
I know my recording equipment isnt the best - a computer running nuendo, various plugins (most notably Ozone), a zoom rhythmtrak drum machine for drums, various guitars with various effects (i normally record straight from lineout on effects pedal), and a fairly bog standard sennheiser e830 (or something) mic. My monitors are edirol MA-7A's
Im wondering if anyone can listen to the track "see in the dark" (www.homerecordingconnecti...le.php?id=7143) in my profile and tell me what makes it "home recorded"??
And also tell me what the next important thing I should purchase? E.g. a better mic? should i record straight from mic'd amp? should i use DI if going straight to desk? Im looking into buying better monitors but maybe they wont help me if my equipment needs upgraded first!
I thought I was doing quite well with what I had but maybe I was wrong!
Many many many many thanks!
[ Back to Top ]
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Sep 24, 2008 09:15 am A man's got to know his limitations .: )
That said, listening on these 'lil compy speakers here at work, that song sounds pretty darn good .(surprised me more than once... good thing) You may not be getting that 'pristine' sound that a high-end studio would bring, but if you're happy with it, and it conveys your song well enough, than take your 'new band managers' opinion for what it is... an opinion .
Sep 24, 2008 09:16 am Idle curiosity, how much experience does your band manager have, what credentials does he pimp to say what he's saying?
skeg0www.dorian-music.co.ukMember
Since: Apr 04, 2008
Sep 24, 2008 09:36 am thanks for the replies!
My band manager doesnt have much producing experience, he is an a&r scout for a major label.. I have always wanted to do recording ourselves, as for me writing and recording go alongside each other. And seeing as I have recording experience I want to use that as much as I can, especially when studios are so expensive etc. Im a bit worried that time in the studio will be quick and i know i wont be able to add in as many little "bits" as i do when im at home.
The thing is though I myself notice my tracks sounding slightly differently to other studio tracks - i just hoped it was just my ears though! I do know and think they sound better than other unsigned artist tracks however, its just the next level im after.
I find it hard trying to describe what my tracks sound like compared to others. I think others are more deeper. The only way i think I can describe it is that if there is a straight line between your speakers, my track all comes from that line - 2 dimensional. Whereas other professional tracks go deeper past that line behind the speakers, more 3 dimensional sounding!!
dont know if that makes sense!
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Sep 24, 2008 09:58 am www.homerecordingconnecti...16920&frm=9
This may be a thread(with links) that may lead you to that wider sound . I have yet to try the technique myself, but am looking forward to it .
Sep 24, 2008 10:03 am Leave it to me to hit it with a simple stick, but I really like the effect of Har-Bal "Air" to kinda give a song some breathing room...I dunno exactly what it does or how, I just dig the result...
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Sep 24, 2008 10:10 am Yes, Harbal ! I've got theWent hip to that prog, and we'll be picking it up before the mixdown sessions .
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Sep 24, 2008 11:17 am Just sounds like it needs mastering. I did notice a lot of hard panning though. You could try layering a bit more to soften the spread... but ya, HarBal would do wonders on this track.
skeg0www.dorian-music.co.ukMember
Since: Apr 04, 2008
Sep 24, 2008 11:20 am Hi BeerHunter,
What exactly do you mean by layering?
Do you mean that instead of panning say 2 instruments hard left and 2 instruments hard right, I seperate them slightly so that both dont occupy the same pan "space"??
many thanks
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Sep 24, 2008 11:38 am ya, try something like panning one track hard left and the other say.... 30% right (experiment a bit with that) but that will help the imaging a bit
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Sep 24, 2008 11:39 am ... also if you are only copying the same track when layering, be sure to nudge it slightly
Sep 24, 2008 01:49 pm Without trying to sound "harsh" (no pun intended) you spent $3k on a recording program and $100 on monitors.
That's about as backwards as you can possibly get. You will only ever be as good as your monitoring allows you to be.
You'd be far better off selling the Nuendo license and using Cubase SX - or even Reaper (shareware) and investing in something that will allow you to hear what's actually going on.
Sep 24, 2008 01:51 pm You have an incredibly, unmistakably good point there MassiveMaster...
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Sep 24, 2008 09:50 pm OK, I had a couple of listens here.
My personal opinion is to give the band manager a good swift boot to the back side first off. And you can tell him it is from me!
I have to say that I have heard far worse mixes come out of far more expensive studio's. While it isn't all polished and glitzy it isn't Home Studio sounding in his sense of the words.
There are easy fixes in the mix such as some that BH stated above. And Mastering is one thing that will surely bring some polish to the mix.
Sep 24, 2008 10:34 pm Just something I want to throw out there.
Buying new / better / more expensive gear will only get you so far. Your greatest limitation will always be YOU. I know WAY too many bands / people who think that better gear will make them better musicians, engineers, etc. This is simply not true. While you're not going to get a "professional" sounding mix out of shoddy gear, the best gear in the world won't get you anywhere if you don't know how to mix properly. Please keep in mind I'm not saying you don't know how to mix, I'm just making my point, you know?
That said, I'd probably get some better monitors if I were you.
Dematrixhttp://www.reverbnation.com/2ndgMember
Since: Nov 27, 2007
Sep 24, 2008 10:45 pm im having a similar experience with my monitors, although they are of good quality, they are quite small and im finding they arent filling the room enough.
i agree also with Johnny Hero, there are so many variables when it comes to mixing that only experience in these will get your mixes better. i guess you gotta be always looking at trying out different tried and tested things in regards to the way ya mix.
Sep 25, 2008 01:18 am A very nice recording and song as well. If I were to make any suggestion It would be to maybe bring the drums out a bit. Which as others said could be done in mastering. But that could very well be my speakers. But obviously a home recording? NOT.
NightcapVeni, MIDI, ViciMember
Since: Jul 02, 2008
Sep 25, 2008 02:09 am First off, why should the phrase "home recording" be used as a synonym for low quality? Listening to your song I wouldn't dream of uttering that statement.
skeg0www.dorian-music.co.ukMember
Since: Apr 04, 2008
Sep 25, 2008 05:57 am thanks for all the replies guys! that has helped restore my confidence..
Im currently looking for another set of monitors second hand to add into the equation so that is that bit sorted...
Though some of you mention "mastering".. I thought I had already done that! - well put it through Ozone... is it a case of doing something new on top of that or do you think its just a matter of tweaking? Though i thought I had tweaked an awful lot so far as it took me quite a few hours to make it sound like that... I havent harballed it yet though.. but flattening the frequency spectrum in other tracks hasnt yielded a major difference for me.. unless I need to spend more time with harbal.. do you guys need to spend a lot of time with it?
Thanks again
Sep 25, 2008 12:57 pm Mastering is generally done by - well, a mastering engineer. Throwing it through "mastering plugins" (and you can hear the sarcasm dripping from the quotation marks) isn't mastering.
That all said - Mastering your own mixes is, almost by definition, second-guessing yourself (it's incredibly rare when you find a mastering engineer willing to master his own mixes - and it makes front-page news on the professional level when a mixing engineer masters the band's mixes). On $100 monitors at that. Hairball? I wouldn't concern yourself with it. Using a plugin to see what sound "looks" like is like licking paint to find out what color it is.
In any case -- The issues I'm hearing in your mixes sound tracking & mixing related. Don't even concern yourself with the mastering process until the previous two are handled.
But where the rubber meets the road -- Yes, your recordings are "less than big-time sounding." But that's typical. If the manager is A&R, he knows what he wants to hear. 90% of the time, that means doing pre-prod at a home studio and then going to a pro studio to get 'er done.
Sep 25, 2008 01:00 pm ...so that's why my walls never end up the right color...
Some mastering engineers dis HarBal, I can understand why, regardless, it's a supreme tool.
Sep 25, 2008 01:12 pm I actually thought it was a reasonable sounding EQ... If it was a VST instead of a stand-alone, it'd actually be a nice thing to have. But in the end, it's just an EQ.
Sep 25, 2008 01:15 pm They tried to make it a VST actually, but the develop ran in to too many road blocks that would eventually have cost it too much performance.
Not sure when you looked at it last, but "just an EQ" I don't agree with. Obviously, that is it's strong suit, the EQ of the song being processed, and I think it's pretty damn good at it, as well, I am a huge fan of the "air" feature. Like I've said before, I am not sure how it does it, but I really, really like the results.
I'm a big fan of HarBal personally, it's saved me countless hours at times.
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Sep 25, 2008 02:51 pm I think the air function in harbal is simply a stereo spreader (maybe freq. based) and some reverb. That's what I got from watching his video.
I would love a vst version though.
skeg0www.dorian-music.co.ukMember
Since: Apr 04, 2008
Sep 25, 2008 04:25 pm Massive Master, saying that, what would a professional masterer actually do/use??
thanks guys for all the replies.. its helped a lot!
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Sep 25, 2008 06:32 pm Quote:
what would a professional masterer actually do/use
Just to throw out an idea, I've seen some articles by George Massenburger, and I think if you read up on a few of his articles, you'll get more of an idea of what mastering (is/does/can do).
Personally, I think the question really defies a detailed answer, because all people are different, and that includes MEs. Find one, he/she uses this hardware, and/or that software. Find another, and they use other hardware, and/or other software.
It really comes down to their ability to use their ears and brain and experience and vision. These altogether on your material (which will also vary greatly), will produce a result. What that result is, is what draws producers to that specific ME.
i'm just rambling, thinking out loud, as it were.
Sep 26, 2008 01:45 am (Disclaimer: "mastering engineers" as in mastering engineers. Not "mastering engineers" as in "kids with cracked software and a pair of nearfields claiming to be mastering engineers" or studios that put a computer in what used to be a broom closet and hang a sign that says "MASTERING ROOM" on the door - Both of which, there are far too many of, IMO/E - Not to sound 'bitter' but you can certainly call me biased...)
The "what they use" part is - Well, my rig is fairly typical: www.massivemastering.com/html/massive_gear.html
Of course, some ME's prefer certain units over others, but you'll generally find a high-quality chain of gear with obscene amounts of usable headroom running through incredibly accurate monitoring chains inside rooms that are specifically designed and treated for accurate and consistent frequency response.
"What they do" is a bigger question -- First and foremost, they listen objectively and without prejudice** -- which is why you'll rarely find engineers who will master their own mixes. George Massenburg. was brought up a moment ago -- Paraphrasing George: "I pay my mastering engineer a whole lot of money for him to tell me that I did a good job."
Then, they do what they can to "polish" the audio sonically and insure that it will translate well to the widest possible array of playback systems. Then, as the word "mastering" implies, they create a compliant (to the format) replication master of that collection of recordings.
** You only get to hear a song for the first time once. I don't even listen all the way through a recording before I go through a typical routine:
1) Listen.
2) Mentally visualize what the recording's sonic potential is.
3) Hit stop.
4) Set up a chain with the settings that will get the song from where it is to where it will be.
5) Hit play.
6) Listen and tweak if necessary.
It's about listening and knowing what the mix(es) wants. It's not experimentation time - There are no starting points, there are no presets, there are no automatic wonder-plugs. Take too much time and become too familiar with the recording and that objectivity is gone. After that, you're second-guessing yourself to some extent.
"Surgery" is another story - De-essing, noise, crackling - There's a particular problem that needs a particular fix and it might take some experimentation with different tools to find the best fix at the time. But shaping the sound... 90% of that is a split-second decision. And what you don't do is at least as important as what you do.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Sep 26, 2008 09:26 pm Nicely put.
I must agree on the idea of taking too much time and second guessing yourself.
I know when mixing, if I get to that stage I have to walk away. Maybe go for a drive and listen to something completely un-related to the music I am working on.
Then I can possibly come back with a fresh pair of ears and keep going.
olddogMember
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Sep 28, 2008 11:00 pm I as well think the mix sounds really good, though not quite studio level. The problem I hear is the same as alot of home recording including my own, and that's lack of clairty/definition and probably stems mostly from mixing environments and to varying degrees lack of experience/knowledge in mixing.
That said I think you've done nice job on the mix and the song is pretty catchy.
As far as getting to the next level if/when I ever figure it out I'll post. :D
Dan
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Sep 29, 2008 03:06 pm I think they sound good. Of course they sound like Home recordings, you recorded them in your home :)
I have plenty of home recordings that are very listenable and enjoyable. IMO you are on the higher end of home recordings which could at least function as a good demo.
I do agree that outside mastering is the only way to go. I do my own when I simply want to capture a song idea but not really publish it (let the band hear).
I desperately wanted our demo album mastered by another body but we spent all our money on getting the disc pressed (we are poor).
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Sep 30, 2008 01:23 am So, I'm am a home recordist who mixes and masters my own music (hip hop mostly). Also noteworty is while I do have a decent pair of monitors, my listening environment is far from ideal. While I haven't had a chance to listen to your song, I thought I would share a technique that I use, and overall, I think I get a pretty good sound out of my studio. For mastering, what I do is find a professionally mixed and mastered song that I would like my song to emulate sonically. Then while I'm in the process of mastering my song, I A/B my song and the other song to see what I need to change. More often than not, the change is in the overall eq and over time, I've developed the ability to kind of hear the difference in eq and what I need to do to close the gap between the two songs. I will try and listen to your track tomorrow and see what I can hear that specifically makes your song sound "home studio".
Sep 30, 2008 01:55 pm Just from another perspective -- Trying to coax a mix somewhere it doesn't want to go tends to end up much differently than where it does.
I'm not against comparing to recordings - But that should be done before the 'record' button is ever pressed. The core sounds are everything. Then during the mix, persuading a few sounds here and there to better represent the baseline mix.
At the mastering stage, where a "big" EQ adjustment is 3/4dB and a "gigantic correction" is 2dB, it's not the time to be molding the mix. If the core recorded wasn't the core necessary, the core should be fixed - Especially if it's one's own mixes.
Keith WarrenMans reach exceeds his graspMember
Since: Oct 23, 2007
Oct 02, 2008 02:15 pm In my personal opinion, unless you're made of money, tracks aren't supposed to be billion dollar studio quality. I think you've done very well in capturing your musical concept, essence and expression with about as much grace and experience as anyone could muster on a 'home' level; I've heard horrible music come out of big studios, and in the case of your music and so many others, fantastic renditions from small studios.
If your 'manager' wants you to have more, "professional sounding" music, tell him to get you signed or foot the bill. Pft.
Oct 03, 2008 12:23 am Quote:
If your 'manager' wants you to have more, "professional sounding" music, tell him to get you signed or foot the bill. Pft.
That's the problem -- Labels want the 'finished product' in hand with new acts now. It used to be that the bigger labels would sign a dozen acts at the end of the year and give them unusually sized advances for the tax write offs. If they hit, it was fine. If they didn't (most didn't), it was a nice right-off.
It's not like that anymore - The labels don't put the advance up anymore unless there's a bidding war going on between labels. They want to hear something near "shelf-readiness" -- Sure, they'll likely have it remixed somewhere and mastered somewhere else, but they want the core ready-to-go.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Oct 03, 2008 01:19 pm Hey, I just got a chance to listen to the song. It's a pretty cool song. It's also quite well done. I would say the things that I thought made it sound kind of more home studioish were that it was panned a bit wide (especially the accoustic). Also, the vocals were a bit reverby and didn't stand out over the guitars in the mix. I would think about pulling the guitars down in the mix compared to the vocals, or some selective eqing of the guitars so as to give the vocals a bit more room to breathe.
I actually really like the song though. Nice whistle part too at the end!
etcd32Member
Since: Oct 03, 2008
Oct 04, 2008 10:38 am dude, id say screw that guy...ive payed for alot of recordings that dont sound half that good, and ive paid a whole load of money for them too.. id suggest keeping wat you do any building off of it...
dude, if your looking for a label...
all they care about is a crisp sound that they can hear everythng in....
what does anyone care about in the long run that hears you
-Your song
-Your Voice
-Your Talent in there eyes
i wouldnt pay anyone to be a manager unless they were getting me on warped tour every year, pointfest and touring with a band that plays booked shows every night.
other than that, you can be your own manager...
i got famous in st louis in the younger scene kids in 5 months.... 50,000 plays on myspace in 5 months by self promotion...by MYSELF.
idk. step it up, and you can be your own manager, and also because you know how to make a pretty great sounding recording using non-pro gear.
as someone said earlier...its YOU who makes it sound amazing. So unless the guy who told you that it was "Home Quality" has a freakiing music degree or has been in studios/ recorded in studios, id suggest you tell him, quite bluntly to, that youd like to see him do the same thing. Most "Managers" nowadays are lowlife bums who want something to feel important because no one else will listen to them.
im not professional, but ive recorded alot in studios and talked to alot of people that deal with music because im intent on making a living on it.
idk. just my two cents....
-evan
(PS if you dont what like i say, its my own philosophy so flame on if you dont like, i love learning what im saying is wrong)
Oct 04, 2008 10:57 am Quote:
It's not like that anymore - The labels don't put the advance up anymore unless there's a bidding war going on between labels. They want to hear something near "shelf-readiness" -- Sure, they'll likely have it remixed somewhere and mastered somewhere else, but they want the core ready-to-go.
What the hell is a label good for, then? Distribution only? Who needs 'em.
Lazy Bossturds.
etcd32Member
Since: Oct 03, 2008
Oct 04, 2008 11:00 am ^^^^^^^^^^Agreed..... heh, ive looked in to major record labels and it seems like a giant scam to me..kinda like those crop lien systems i just learned about.
-evan
Oct 04, 2008 11:44 am Quote:
What the hell is a label good for, then? Distribution only? Who needs 'em.
Distribution and marketing. Nothing goes anywhere without marketing.
Oct 04, 2008 12:24 pm I dunno, Herb, I consider distribution a pretty MAJOR part of the business...
That being said, labels do suck.
Oct 04, 2008 04:37 pm I know. I'm just speaking from the viewpoint of a guy who's not trying to sell records. Obvious?
THAT said, it's tough to sell anything these days. I'm not getting rich with voice overs either, but thank God I don't need a label to do it...
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Oct 04, 2008 07:14 pm After that,I got nothing?
First time for everything I guess.
Oct 04, 2008 07:56 pm You still have me, Noize. Best of luck with that.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Oct 04, 2008 08:22 pm Blushes.
Dematrixhttp://www.reverbnation.com/2ndgMember
Since: Nov 27, 2007
Oct 04, 2008 09:09 pm with the right marketing and enough coin you can sell anything, and i mean anything, just look at some of the crap music on the radio, and yet people buy it by the truck load, listened to once or twice and chuck in a drawer with the other ones from last week.
then years later, they look in the drawer and wonder where and when they bought all this crap they dont even listen to.
like Weslife or MC Hammer and related puss.
if MCHammer is wearing those big puffy ridiculous pants then they must be cool.
they suck but its started a trend.
good marketing.
Oct 04, 2008 09:38 pm Deon, you are me twenty years ago.
Don't get me started on a diatribe about watered-down crap, 'cause I will at even the slightest provocation.
But I'm still OK. No worries. Really.. Eh...
Herb's not a bitter old man. Yet.
Dematrixhttp://www.reverbnation.com/2ndgMember
Since: Nov 27, 2007
Oct 05, 2008 09:08 pm ^ oh he a good looking man isnt he?
"ah, Macain youve done it again".
(possibly on the carpet by the looks of this photo)
it seems we are having a real problem over here atm with extra extra watered down homemade crap. eg: aussie idol.
when i say homemade, i mean a record company made competition complete with, well really, 2nd grade music and 2 hand ideas.
now the band that plays the stuff over here is supposed to be the ducks nuts, if that's so, then i guess this re- enforces my comments, because there's is just no way they would come up with some of the stuff they are currently doing without it being demanded by the company.
it doesnt ooze "conservatorium of music"
i'll put it that way....or does it??
skeg0www.dorian-music.co.ukMember
Since: Apr 04, 2008
Oct 08, 2008 05:33 am cheers for the types guys..
theres a part of me that wishes it was 15-20 years ago where demos all sounded crap and labels didnt ask for a professional sounding demo. They would have looked beyond the recording and at the talent behind it.. nowadays i get the impression they no longer do that and hence a lot of crapon the radio as deon was saying. Although I suppose some may argue that it goes hand in hand with technology meaning better recordings.. but i still think people should look at the talent.
It's just a theory but people that are passionate about music, but have no ability, will probably end up being the people working at the bottom of the ladder in labels.. and i think the bottom of the ladder is the talent scouts (i mean i dont think they dont even get paid.. at least not here in the uk.. ticket prices are covered but thats more or less it i think). In essence i mean its probably the people that do the "deciding" not the working.. maybe that is why there is a lean to bands that are good at the marketing side as opposed to the musical side.. the companies are suckers like the people that buy the crap that wont stand the test of time at all. They just dont know its crap. as long as it sounds fairly good quality then its good.
Anyway, ill stop ranting so i can get back to work!
I've uploaded a new version of my track taking on board some of the comments.. well the earlier ones, havent had a chance to do the more recent ones. Ive harballed it, used air (which is amazing by the way!) and matched it to a harbal reference from mansun - an old 90's band that did "wide open space" etc. amazing band and probabyl my favourite band ever. I think their sound matches mine and is definitely what i want to go for - paul draper the singer was also the producer (at least for the first 2 albums) and did an amazing job.
Anyway, I used harbal to steal their high and low ends, left the middle for the tracks own essence - judging again from what people were saying - that sounds like a good technique.. I always struggle with the highs and especialyl the lows, but leaving the middle will keep the track sounding like its meant to sound.
I also reduced the panning so that its not as wide, and also added in an acoustic "strum" track, without any notes, just strumming a muted guitar as i struggled before with EQing the guitar with more treble to catch the acousiticy sounding strum noise. I think it has worked quite well. My recording of the acoustic wasnt the best to begin with - my mic isnt that good.
Anyway, ill aim to do more with the other comments people have left, in the meantme thanks again for all the help, it has definitely restored my confidence in what im doing.. otherwise it was pretty pointless you see!
Cheers
NightcapVeni, MIDI, ViciMember
Since: Jul 02, 2008
Oct 08, 2008 09:47 pm You obviously put some real effort in mixing the song again and it shows imho!
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Oct 09, 2008 04:40 pm Indeed, that is a lot more clarity then the original for sure. Nicely done for sure.
The acoustic is very clear now and doesn't get lost in the mix. It also seems that it brought the bass guitar to pop a little more and it is more defined with a much more funk feel as it should be with this track.
Well done indeed.
