Can We Stop Calling It A Home Studio?

wesleyamltd said:
Wild Horses by The Rolling Stones sounds like it was recorded with a RadioShack cassette recorder but it’s one of the greatest songs of all time. If that song were produced today it would go through the wringer of production and processing in an attempt to make it bigger better and larger than life.

The measure of success in renown musical productions are based on numbers, the majority determines what is successful.

Of course, everything is subjective today because perception is reality.

When I say great Musician and great composition I refer to those who have proven track records, not by my standards but by the standard of their chosen genre.

Is Bach great? Emphatically yes! This is an absolute fact and empirical.

Are all 5 Beatles great, yes!
Click to expand...
Wild Horses was written in the 60s and recorded in the early 70s. It is really cool you dig that. If you enjoy that standard of audio production, there are 100s of thousands of recordings made in the era for you to check out. The Stones and their contemporaries came from a time when what they did was actually possible. Those conditions no longer exist and have not existed for decades now. Even the Stones no longer record such low fidelity music and have progressed with the times.

So let me ask, if an unknown musician creates a song, is that incapable of reaching your great musician and great composition standard? They would have no proven track record. Is “great” only great by committee vote or “great” an opinion of the listener? Your opinion of Wild Horses being one of the greatest songs of all time I disagree with, as generally I’m not a Stones fan. It’s cool you and many other people think it is, but what makes anyone’s opinion any more valid? This isnt math, it is music and has no right answer. Does something have to be commercially successful in order to reach your standard? What about other measures of success? What if I wrote a song, had no commercial success with it but gained the respect of my peers? What if it inspired a single person to do something positive or great? To me, that is the best kind of success possible. Is my hypothetical song now a potentially great song, even though the masses never heard of me?
 
Bruce Sokolovic said:
Wild Horses was written in the 60s and recorded in the early 70s. It is really cool you dig that. If you enjoy that standard of audio production, there are 100s of thousands of recordings made in the era for you to check out. The Stones and their contemporaries came from a time when what they did was actually possible. Those conditions no longer exist and have not existed for decades now. Even the Stones no longer record such low fidelity music and have progressed with the times.

So let me ask, if an unknown musician creates a song, is that incapable of reaching your great musician and great composition standard? They would have no proven track record. Is “great” only great by committee vote or “great” an opinion of the listener? Your opinion of Wild Horses being one of the greatest songs of all time I disagree with, as generally I’m not a Stones fan. It’s cool you and many other people think it is, but what makes anyone’s opinion any more valid? This isnt math, it is music and has no right answer. Does something have to be commercially successful in order to reach your standard? What about other measures of success? What if I wrote a song, had no commercial success with it but gained the respect of my peers? What if it inspired a single person to do something positive or great? To me, that is the best kind of success possible. Is my hypothetical song now a potentially great song, even though the masses never heard of me?
Click to expand...
The short answer is no.
We live in a capitalist society that measures success by return on investment and exponential growth. This is what drives competition and innovation.
The way any music becomes relevant to the zeitgeist is due to popularity. This is a general way to measure a bands greatness and potential for longevity.

Statics disregard outliers on both extremes because they radically alters the results inaccurately.

I love Mr. Bungle and I think Mike Patton is a genius musician but Mr. Bungle will never enjoy the renown of Metallica, Taylor Swift or any of the other top regarded artist, bands…

However there is a point where even art can be more than held hostage by subjective reality. If it was only held to the standard of subjectivity then why are some artist, band’s rewarded monetarily more than others?

What is a rockstar? Why is there a rockstar? What makes them famous? Rhetorical questions indeed.

I love esoteric, avant-garde and eclectic music but some of those bands will never see modicum of success nor be revered or remembered in the annals of time.
That is the sad truth of capitalism and music industry.
 
wesleyamltd said:
The short answer is no.
We live in a capitalist society that measures success by return on investment and exponential growth. This is what drives competition and innovation.
The way any music becomes relevant to the zeitgeist is due to popularity. This is a general way to measure a bands greatness and potential for longevity.

Statics disregard outliers on both extremes because they radically alters the results inaccurately.

I love Mr. Bungle and I think Mike Patton is a genius musician but Mr. Bungle will never enjoy the renown of Metallica, Taylor Swift or any of the other top regarded artist, bands…

However there is a point where even art can be more than held hostage by subjective reality. If it was only held to the standard of subjectivity then why are some artist, band’s rewarded monetarily more than others?

What is a rockstar? Why is there a rockstar? What makes them famous? Rhetorical questions indeed.

I love esoteric, avant-garde and eclectic music but some of those bands will never see modicum of success nor be revered or remembered in the annals of time.
That is the sad truth of capitalism and music industry.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, you are confusing music with music business. They are not the same. Bands like The Rolling Stones, GnR, Bon Jovi and even Taylor Swift are selling lifestyle and culture more than they are music.
 
Bruce Sokolovic said:
Ultimately, you are confusing music with music business. They are not the same. Bands like The Rolling Stones, GnR, Bon Jovi and even Taylor Swift are selling lifestyle and culture more than they are music.
Click to expand...
I’m not confused. Not everything is based on an idealized version of reality. CLR is a revered mixer/engineer/producer because his productions sell albums and win awards…..
 
wesleyamltd said:
I’m not confused. Not everything is based on an idealized version of reality. CLR is a revered mixer/engineer/producer because his productions sell albums and win awards…..
Click to expand...
And as much as I love money, not everything is about it. The only reality that matters in music is the opinion of its creator and the end users. The only reality in music business is how many copies it sold or how many times it streamed. If I like a song, regardless if I’m its only listener, I like it and it is a good song to me. That is as real as it gets.

Aside from that, it isnt every artists goal to make as much money as humanly possible making music. Some just want to tour. Some just want to play bars. Some just want to sit behind their desk and write. Isn’t the very definition of success reaching YOUR goals? People are allowed to have goals that do not include money, dont they? Even in a capitalist society. You do realize they make music in Russia, too. Cuba, Vietnam, and I’m going to bet even in North Korea. Are any of these musicians successful and do any of their compositions have the potential to be great?

Art in terms of music matters to 2 people only at any given time. The creator and more importantly, the listener. Everything after that is something else beyond music.
 
Bruce Sokolovic said:
There is certainly a clear distinction in the results. No way you’re getting the results with a laptop and some plugins I’m getting with a bunch of outboard and good monitoring, and I’m not getting the same results I’d get in a large console pro studio at home (although I’m closer to that than someone would be with a beginners setup is to me). It is not all the same.
Click to expand...

I disagree wholeheartedly.

I realize these comparisons are not apples-to-apples when you talk about the average engineer working in a home/diy/project studio, but...

Andrew Scheps has been all-ITB for years. When he was transitioning from his vintage Neve to ITB, things kept getting released in a different order from what he mixed them in, and people were consistently wrong about whether something was mixed ITB or on the console. And most of that was apparently done in baldy-treated or untreated rooms on Tannoys that honestly kind of suck compared to modern mid-range speakers...or on 7506s. The 7506 thing is what I don't understand - I think they sound so bad that there's no way I could work on them.

There's at least one mastering engineer at Sterling Sound who has gone pretty much all-ITB, and no one noticed.

Glenn Schick went all-ITB and from $100,000 speakers and a room to match to headphones.

Bruce Sokolovic said:
I have damn near every version of the ssl bus comp plugin. None of them do what my AudioScape G bus does. It’s just bigger sounding, more forgiving and adds another layer of 3D to the sound the plugins just don’t do.
Click to expand...

I call BS. You very well may get better results when you're using hardware. But, it's not the gear responsible for it, it's what you do with it.

I still honestly don't know what "3D" means in terms of audio, despite the fact that I've had ITB masters complimented in exactly that way on numerous occasions. My suspicion is that it literally just means louder or more compressed. But, I promise I don't do anything specifically targeting that comment, I just make things sound "better", and that's one of the phrases people seem to use to describe "better" when they want to appear more discerning.

Bruce Sokolovic said:
Monitors are only half the story in monitoring. A bad room and forget it. You’ll be making 19 revisions of the mix. I’m a fan of slate VSX. If you don’t have a good room, they are a must have.
Click to expand...

I agree about the room but not about VSX. I finally got to try it again not too long ago, and...those headphones sound like junk to me with or without the plugin. I find it incredibly difficult to be confident in my decisions with them. But, it's just different strokes....I think the way that Slate captures room/speaker effects is about as good as you're going to do with current technology. But, I specifically like the fact that the room isn't a factor in headphones and especially IEMs. IMHO, all headphones and IEMs require at least mild EQ and crossfeed, but I think that a room simulation specifically damages what's "magical" about them.

There absolutely are headphones and in-ears that I think put even very nice speakers to shame, just not those.
 
I mean to me it doesn' tmatter. Who cares what its called. I mean if its at home its a home studio, even if you're making money and have clients, unless its totaly converted into a full funcioning studio then its just a home studio. call it what you want. I call mine the hyperbolic time chamber but i mean hey.
 
Bruce Sokolovic said:
And as much as I love money, not everything is about it. The only reality that matters in music is the opinion of its creator and the end users. The only reality in music business is how many copies it sold or how many times it streamed. If I like a song, regardless if I’m its only listener, I like it and it is a good song to me. That is as real as it gets.

Aside from that, it isnt every artists goal to make as much money as humanly possible making music. Some just want to tour. Some just want to play bars. Some just want to sit behind their desk and write. Isn’t the very definition of success reaching YOUR goals? People are allowed to have goals that do not include money, dont they? Even in a capitalist society. You do realize they make music in Russia, too. Cuba, Vietnam, and I’m going to bet even in North Korea. Are any of these musicians successful and do any of their compositions have the potential to be great?

Art in terms of music matters to 2 people only at any given time. The creator and more importantly, the listener. Everything after that is something else beyond music.
Click to expand...
I agree that music is deeply personal and that’s all that should matter, not money.

I’m happy you’re passionate about making music and your focus is on the experience and not the outcome.
 
marsonic said:
I disagree wholeheartedly.

I realize these comparisons are not apples-to-apples when you talk about the average engineer working in a home/diy/project studio, but...

Andrew Scheps has been all-ITB for years. When he was transitioning from his vintage Neve to ITB, things kept getting released in a different order from what he mixed them in, and people were consistently wrong about whether something was mixed ITB or on the console. And most of that was apparently done in baldy-treated or untreated rooms on Tannoys that honestly kind of suck compared to modern mid-range speakers...or on 7506s. The 7506 thing is what I don't understand - I think they sound so bad that there's no way I could work on them.

There's at least one mastering engineer at Sterling Sound who has gone pretty much all-ITB, and no one noticed.

Glenn Schick went all-ITB and from $100,000 speakers and a room to match to headphones.



I call BS. You very well may get better results when you're using hardware. But, it's not the gear responsible for it, it's what you do with it.

I still honestly don't know what "3D" means in terms of audio, despite the fact that I've had ITB masters complimented in exactly that way on numerous occasions. My suspicion is that it literally just means louder or more compressed. But, I promise I don't do anything specifically targeting that comment, I just make things sound "better", and that's one of the phrases people seem to use to describe "better" when they want to appear more discerning.



I agree about the room but not about VSX. I finally got to try it again not too long ago, and...those headphones sound like junk to me with or without the plugin. I find it incredibly difficult to be confident in my decisions with them. But, it's just different strokes....I think the way that Slate captures room/speaker effects is about as good as you're going to do with current technology. But, I specifically like the fact that the room isn't a factor in headphones and especially IEMs. IMHO, all headphones and IEMs require at least mild EQ and crossfeed, but I think that a room simulation specifically damages what's "magical" about them.

There absolutely are headphones and in-ears that I think put even very nice speakers to shame, just not those.
Click to expand...
Andrew Scheps is a rare talent. My point stands when speaking about averages, which an overwhelming majority of people are. Keep in mind many of these people are in the business of selling plugins, too. I have his plugins. That doesnt mean they are lying, but it certainly gives them motive and at least warrants a consideration of source. Mario Andretti can probably beat me around the track if we switched cars, too and I drive a Honda odyssey these days.

I’ve had the hardware for some time now. If you dont believe me, thats fine but I’m not a liar. I’m telling my experience going from in the box to hybrid. I’m no expert, do not have golden ears, am painfully average but do bring years of my experience to the table. I have no dog in this fight as I own thousands of dollars in plugin licenses and thousands of dollars in hardware. I’m an early adopter of Waves Mercury, you dont want to know what I paid for that. That and my UA plugins and I could have bought a boat.

3D, as in a completely new layer of sound sounding like it is resting beyond my speakers. The SSL 2 bus plus makes my room sound 3x as big and it makes the soundscape so obvious as to where to place stuff. Mixes became bigger, wider, punchier and way better when I added that and the fusion to my setup. No plugin I have does that, at least not at settings I’ve discovered. Simply putting the G bus comp in the chain on the mix greatly improves things and moves the whole thing to the front.

Another example I can give is the Maag EQ 4 channel EQ. I have the EQ4M as well as the plugin versions. The air band on the plugin does a good job, but the hardware quickly demonstrates why the plugin is 20 bucks and the hardware is 3 grand. Believe me, I absolutely LOVE money. I adore it. I would not want my 3 grand back and lose this EQ. It is THAT good.

As for VSX, different strokes. My mixes got a lot better with them. I, like you are case studies of one. Use whatever inspires you and you think sounds good.
 
SilverTheSky said:
I mean to me it doesn' tmatter. Who cares what its called. I mean if its at home its a home studio, even if you're making money and have clients, unless its totaly converted into a full funcioning studio then its just a home studio. call it what you want. I call mine the hyperbolic time chamber but i mean hey.
Click to expand...

Bruce Sokolovic said:
Andrew Scheps is a rare talent. My point stands when speaking about averages, which an overwhelming majority of people are. Keep in mind many of these people are in the business of selling plugins, too. I have his plugins. That doesnt mean they are lying, but it certainly gives them motive and at least warrants a consideration of source. Mario Andretti can probably beat me around the track if we switched cars, too and I drive a Honda odyssey these days.

I’ve had the hardware for some time now. If you dont believe me, thats fine but I’m not a liar. I’m telling my experience going from in the box to hybrid. I’m no expert, do not have golden ears, am painfully average but do bring years of my experience to the table. I have no dog in this fight as I own thousands of dollars in plugin licenses and thousands of dollars in hardware. I’m an early adopter of Waves Mercury, you dont want to know what I paid for that. That and my UA plugins and I could have bought a boat.

3D, as in a completely new layer of sound sounding like it is resting beyond my speakers. The SSL 2 bus plus makes my room sound 3x as big and it makes the soundscape so obvious as to where to place stuff. Mixes became bigger, wider, punchier and way better when I added that and the fusion to my setup. No plugin I have does that, at least not at settings I’ve discovered. Simply putting the G bus comp in the chain on the mix greatly improves things and moves the whole thing to the front.

Another example I can give is the Maag EQ 4 channel EQ. I have the EQ4M as well as the plugin versions. The air band on the plugin does a good job, but the hardware quickly demonstrates why the plugin is 20 bucks and the hardware is 3 grand. Believe me, I absolutely LOVE money. I adore it. I would not want my 3 grand back and lose this EQ. It is THAT good.

As for VSX, different strokes. My mixes got a lot better with them. I, like you are case studies of one. Use whatever inspires you and you think sounds good.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you have all the appointments of a studio ;)
 
As a funny aside and relevant to the op, a few Namms ago CLA was doing his thing at the SSL booth on the Orion board and took some Q&A after. Now, I have met him MANY times and he always comes across as genuine, and like a guys guy. This particular time, I’d say he was just a little animated and dare I say pompous. Someone asked him about their home studio. He fired back (quoting from the best I can remember of the answer) “let’s get something straight. If you want to have a studio, that isnt in your spare bedroom or your basement. That is not a studio. Go into town, rent some cheap commercial space, do the work yourself and start recording people for money. That is a studio”. I have to say, as a client, unless you’ve charted and have a proven track record, if I were paying for time, I dont want to be in some guys bedroom. I’d want to be in a commercial space. I also understand with everyone having access to perfectly acceptable gear at reasonable money, these places are less and less relevant to anyone but label artists with good financial backing. So much is done yourself these days.

Last quick story from that same chat, I was having problems getting a good vocal from my wife. Now she is a very good singer. Has a degree in vocal performance and actually studied with CLAs mom who had a vocal instructional studio. I have had problems getting a good track from her, as she is just a better live singer and seems too clinical when recording. No flair or fire in the tracks (this has since improved with time). So I asked him “what do you do to inspire an artist who just isnt bringing it”? His answer was “you send them the FVCK home and tell them stop wasting everyone’s time and come back when they’re ready” lol. I turned to my wife and said well, there’s your answer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom