A question for studio professionals

[TonyCrazyMan]

Hi!

 

I am curious about what the sound quality element composition is like in a very professional recording!

 

If you put a percentage on these two elements when weighted against the overall sound quality of the recording, what are these?

 

A) Engineer skills

B) Equipment

 

What's your thoughts about these two elements in the professional recording world? Is it like 50% 50% or 20% 80% or what? Is there a third element (for instance musician quality) that should be listed because it is important to include in this context? What composition would it have?

 

I am interested in this because I want to know what I should focus on the mostly (spend most energy on) in my strive for the optimum sound quality!

[sweet]

Awesome question.

 

I'd like to add something I've picked up/read/learned (I'm a total n00b to recording, BTW), perhaps food for thought as folks think about this.

 

Good Mastering can't fix a bad mix

Good Mixing can't fix bad tracking

Good tracking can't fix a bad performance

Good performance can't fix bad gear

 

If these comments are true (an in the right order) does it help to serve as a guideline?

 

I also realize this might be shade off track from Tony's question, and don't intend to hijack his thread.

[Daniel Smart]

Originally posted by sweet

Good performance can't fix bad gear

 

While this in essence has some truth in it, I've come across musicians who've forced me to redefine what 'bad gear' actually means. The old saying 'the tone's in the fingers' is definitely true.

 

-Daniel

[where02190]

A good engineer can make a great recording from medeocre gear, whereas the best gear in the world is wasted in the hads of someone who knows not what to do with it.

 

my vote, 99.9%/.1%

[TonyCrazyMan]

 

sweet: Good Mastering can't fix a bad mix Good Mixing can't fix bad tracking Good tracking can't fix a bad performance Good performance can't fix bad gear Daniel Smart: While this in essence has some truth in it, I've come across musicians who've forced me to redefine what 'bad gear' actually means. The old saying 'the tone's in the fingers' is definitely true. EngineGuitarist: its hard to put a percentage on the two but in general i'd say its probably about 80% skills 20% gear, maybe 70% and 30% even.

 

 

I think we are heading towards the truth here. I have some thoughts about this issue myself.

 

Let's take 4 examples and compare them:

 

Great engineer skills

Cheap bad gear

 

Great engineer skills

Expensive good gear

 

Bad engineer skills

Cheap bad gear

 

Bad engineer skills

Expensive good gear

 

So first of all let's try to exclude one of these. Obviously will win much over , because is the worst combination. So these are the rest:

 

Great engineer skills

Cheap bad gear

 

Great engineer skills

Expensive good gear

 

Bad engineer skills

Expensive good gear

 

 

Obviously will win over and since is the perfect combination. So these are the rest:

 

Great engineer skills

Cheap bad gear

 

Bad engineer skills

Expensive good gear

 

The question is now, what's more weithed, engineer skills or gear? Statement 1:

 

A great engineer with bad gear can make it sounding better than a bad engineer with great gear.

 

Of course this depends on how bad the gear is and how bad the engineer is. Two examples:

 

Steve Marcantonio

Old tape recorder and some very cheap mics

 

Eleven year old "player" that loves to mess with sound

Pro tools, Lavry Converter, SSL and some truly great mics

 

Well probably will make the sound clip pretty much, put a lot of effects on, mic the drums completely wrong and so on. So it is "beautiful" noisy tones with clipping distortion. would probably result in a weak mono like song with much noise in the signal. To me both are really bad sounding, so I think it is something like 40% 60% or 60% 40% depending on the situation.

So this yields not a very good picture of the composition other than it seems like gear and engineer skills are equally important. What happens if musician quality becomes a third element in the picture? Let see:

 

Steve Marcantonio

Old tape recorder and some very cheap mics

Good musicians

 

Eleven year old "player" that loves to mess with sound

Pro tools, Lavry Converter, SSL and some truly great mics

Good musicians

 

Good musicians would probably lay down a very good arrangement with few elements at a time. So this would compensate pretty much for 's mud of effects. While in deed there would be some beautiful music recorded with , it seems like it might become more noisy and muddy for since the noise would take out the arrangement rather effectively. This I think makes a somewhat better sounding combination, so it seems like 40% and 60% .

 

What happens if the weak elements now improve?

 

Steve Marcantonio

New tape recorder and decent mics

Good musicians

 

Eleven year old "player" that knows the basics about recording

Pro tools, Lavry Converter, SSL and some truly great mics

Good musicians

 

will now be able to record good sound quality but the music but the lack of very good mixing skills will make it rather dead sounding anyway, maybe a rather muddy low end for example... on the other hand will sound a little more noisy but feel a lot smoother and better. I think the perception here is that a general listener would choose over , but not by much, maybe something like 60% 40%. That would make them much more even, so the situation is now 50% 50%.

 

Now let's focus on some possibility calculations.

What's the chance of finding a great engineer among 100 available persons? I would say among these about 10 - 15 are great. Let's say 15. That makes an 85% chance that the recording engineer isn't great. The interesting thing is that if you take 100 gear setups I think you'll find 20 - 25% great gear. It's easier to buy the right stuff than it is to become a great engineer. So this makes the mixing engineer a little more important:

 

A) 65% engineer skills

B) 35% gear

 

Let's see what happens when A) starts affecting B) and vice versa. When a great engineer gets better gear the overall result will probably accelerate in quality because the effeciency within A) will give far greater results and this will compensate positively for A). If on the other hand the engineer skills are perfect but the gear is on the same level there is not the same efficieny within B) as within A when the opposite combination was tested. This adds something like 5-10% for A) and because of the acceleration of the final result when A) quality is increasing, it's more an addition of 10% than 5%. So the situation is:

 

A) 75% engineer skills

B) 25% gear

 

These figures, based on the above logics, would point towards the actual figures. The problem with the logics is the 10% and 15% that were added, because they might be totally wrong amounts. But it is rather obvious that the engineer skills are more important since nothing points towards gear being more important. But my best guess about the actual figures is 70% engineer skills and 30% gear.

 

So it seems like I should be focusing more on becoming skilled at the whole recording process than getting the best available gear but also strive for better and better gear as I become more skilled as an engineer.

[the russ]

 

Originally posted by sweet Good performance can't fix bad gear

 

 

sure as hell can. listen to half of the Guided By Voices catalog.

[numrologst]

you guys are all on the right track. I am by no means a master, but i am good what i do.

 

Like it was said above you can have the best gear, but if you cant use it, it means nothing.

 

When i first started playing around in a pro studio, i knew nothing but the basics. But i was fortunate enough that a producer friend allowed me to watch everything he did. So i would watch and then read.

 

I soon found that I can make great recordings and mixes with whatever was thrown in front of me.

 

Gear is good to have.

 

Whether or not you will take the time to experiment and make sure you are tracking right, mixing right...That will make the difference in the quality of recordings.

 

Just read as much info as you can. Learning how to use your interface is one thing. Learning how to produce and record is another.

[rhythminmind]

90% the engineer/mixer/player not the gear...

 

i like to think of it like this..

 

A great guitarist with a crappy guitar can still play an great song...

[Daniel Smart]

Originally posted by rhythminmind A great guitarist with a crappy guitar can still play an great song...

 

Frustrating that, isn't it? In today's culture we're so used to being able to throw money at something and get an instant result - so much easier if you cuold just go out a get some $5000 guitar and that would be it. What do you mean, I actually have to work hard and practice ?

 

I guess the throwing money at it alternative is getting a session musician in.

 

-Daniel

[alcohol]

You can't underestimate equipment. Sure there are guys who get lousy results with great equipment, but there are results you can't get unless you have the tools.

 

I bought a couple of Distressors. Finally I managed to get tones my plugins just never seemed to get, no matter how hard I tried. I used to have an Allen & Heath GL-2200 mixing board. The replacement with an Amek Angela was an immediate noticable improvement in sound.

 

An Apogee Rosetta's improvement over a DIGI001 was significant.

 

There's a certain quality of sound in recording that is equipment dependent.

 

An analogy. I recently took two cameras on vacation. A nice digital and a 35mm film camera. I took the pictures but the film camera consistently got a quality of picture superior to the digital.

 

The best way a low budget studio competes with a high budget studio is with better songs and performances. Low budget studios offer more time to get it right than the high budget studios, especially for artists with limited budgets. I get better results in my home studio than I did at several professional studios with Neotek consoles, Pultec Eqs and Studer recorders. However, I spend much more time on a song than I did then. My limited budget prevented me from taking advantage of what the professional studio had to offer.

 

I will say that the new digital technology has shrunk the difference in sonic quality between prosumer and professional, but there is still a difference.

[TonyCrazyMan]

 

Originally posted by alcohol You can't underestimate equipment. Sure there are guys who get lousy results with great equipment, but there are results you can't get unless you have the tools. I bought a couple of Distressors. Finally I managed to get tones my plugins just never seemed to get, no matter how hard I tried. I used to have an Allen & Heath GL-2200 mixing board. The replacement with an Amek Angela was an immediate noticable improvement in sound. An Apogee Rosetta's improvement over a DIGI001 was significant. There's a certain quality of sound in recording that is equipment dependent. An analogy. I recently took two cameras on vacation. A nice digital and a 35mm film camera. I took the pictures but the film camera consistently got a quality of picture superior to the digital. The best way a low budget studio competes with a high budget studio is with better songs and performances. Low budget studios offer more time to get it right than the high budget studios, especially for artists with limited budgets. I get better results in my home studio than I did at several professional studios with Neotek consoles, Pultec Eqs and Studer recorders. However, I spend much more time on a song than I did then. My limited budget prevented me from taking advantage of what the professional studio had to offer. I will say that the new digital technology has shrunk the difference in sonic quality between prosumer and professional, but there is still a difference.

 

 

There is a lot of truth in what you are saying. I can agree that it sounds good if Jimi Hendrix would play some cool stuff on a cheap strat with a cheap amp, but put a good guitar in his hands and it would sound much better! Skilled picking techniques, tone selecting and vibratos/arpeggios is one thing, but a good recording quality is another. I think, just as you, that there is a different between a moped and a motorcycle. My conclusion so far on this topic (70% engineer skills, 30% gear) is that I think I might have understimated the quality of the gear to some extent. I start believing it's more something like 35% or even 40% gear, just because you get something totally different sounding when you start adding a lot of sources of good sound in a recording chain. Of course it's up to the engineer to dial in the right sound, but some gear is good sounding only by having it in the chain. The more gear put in the chain, the more tonal possibilities, but also the more important the gear quality becomes.

 

BTW, you mentioned you had upgraded from a DIGI001 to a Rosetta. I am thinking about upgrading from an RME Fireface 800 to the Rosetta myself. Do you think I would reqognise the same quality difference as you when you upgraded from your digi001 or maybe you think I would notice an even bigger difference by upgrading from the RME?

[alcohol]

 

Originally posted by TonyCrazyMan BTW, you mentioned you had upgraded from a DIGI001 to a Rosetta. I am thinking about upgrading from an RME Fireface 800 to the Rosetta myself. Do you think I would reqognise the same quality difference as you when you upgraded from your digi001 or maybe you think I would notice an even bigger difference by upgrading from the RME?

 

 

I don't know.

[TonyCrazyMan]

 

Originally posted by alcohol I don't know.

 

 

OK, me neither... Is there anybody here that knows this?

[alcohol]

Tony,

 

I haven't done an A/B comparison, but I don't think my apogee sounds any better than my Nuendo 8 I/O made by RME.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by TonyCrazyMan So it seems like I should be focusing more on becoming skilled at the whole recording process than getting the best available gear but also strive for better and better gear as I become more skilled as an engineer.

 

Yes definitely.

 

As you become a better engineer you will also develop a better understanding of which gear purchases will make the biggest difference for your dollar, and be able to tell whether in fact a gear upgrade has made a difference in your overall quality.

 

It IS nice when you have the luxury of great gear though. That way, if something you do sucks there's no doubt in your mind that it's you, not the gear. I was fortunate to intern in some really good studios so I learned that harsh reality early on.

[Daniel Smart]

Originally posted by TonyCrazyMan OK, me neither... Is there anybody here that knows this?

 

How can somebody tell you if you'd be able to notice something or not. Surely you're the only one equipped to tell us that.

 

-Daniel

[alcohol]

If somebody has experience with the equipment he asked about they could tell him.

 

As an example. I had experience with the KSM 27 microphone, and despite so many good reviews, I've found that the mic was a disappointment for recording vocals, compared to other microphones I've used.