The Real Cost of Home Recording

My original plan was to make my own album and write about it. Then I thought maybe just a three or four track EP would be more attainable. And then the quarter hit me hard and my kid started to run and climb. My equipment went up on a shelf or got buried in boxes or anything else to keep it safe from a toddler on a rampage. Like Godzilla, he brings destruction everywhere he lays his foot down. My only free time is when he sleeps: AKA quiet time.

I started charging people to do recordings a while ago, and needless to say I get less calls than I used to. It's not because the product is so insanely good that I deserved professional compensation, but because my time is worth something. The last project I worked on took me one hour to record and around 20 hours to edit, mix and do some light mastering work. All that for a 60 minute CD. And I wasn’t even the musician. If I had been, you could add rehearsal time plus the time it takes to track the bass, the guitar, the vocals…

Hopefully, I can get back into recording when my monsters get out of their chew/throw/stomp everything phase. Until then, I’m just gonna get some practice in here and there. Maybe someday, I’ll have something to show for the time I’ve put into this hobby.

Take care,
Aaron Mevis

Crowdsource: Recording Fail

There are a million ways to ruin a recording. From bad mixes to an overzealous use of effects, and at any stage of the process, you can turn your hard work into something no one will ever want to listen to (or at least pay for). The point is some music isn’t fit for an audience. But sometimes, musicians and producers don’t seem to know the difference.

Take for example Tool’s 2001 album Lateralus:

I love Tool. They make complex music – a mix of heavy rock and metal played in difficult time signatures and laced with industrial sound throughout. Their lead singer, Maynard James Keenan is one of the most dynamic rock vocalists of our time. And they make it a point to write thoughtful (although usually angry) lyrics. So when I first listened to the album, I had one question: Where the hell are the vocals?

Mixing music is like pouring several glasses of water into one. It’s all about proportion—too much from one means not as much from another.  Lateralus fell victim of pitting too many instrument tracks against the vocals. I’ve been told the lyrics tell a deep story about the nature of humanity, but I’ve never heard it. I would rebuy the album if it were remixed and remastered. But as it is, I just stash it away with the other CDs I’ll never listen to. I’m talking about you, Batman Returns soundtrack.

I wanted to ask some music listeners about the worst recordings they’ve ever heard, so I solicited some responses from Facebook.

Sometimes a recording can start out bad and just get worse from there. Todd Buckingham, a network engineer from Dayton, told me about his experience in high school with an infamously bad recording.

“It was a song I liked. A local band trying to cover Kiss' “Rock and Roll all Night,” said Buckingham. “We had a TV studio in the high school and we reused the same track when we were making fun of something.”

The musicians weren’t very good to begin with. Add a heavy dose of distortion and some reverb effect that made the sound like they were playing inside a tin can, and you have a recipe for a recording that should have never seen the light of day.

Other times it’s not the musicians that ruin the recording, but a terrible engineer.

Richard Lykins, a manager at an engineering firm from Kettering, is a huge Metallica fan, but when he heard their album Death Magnetic, he did some research into why it sounded so bad.

“While the music was a return to classic Metallica type riffs, the recording itself is indeed crap.  I’ve read in forums how a lot of music nowadays is recorded at high levels to try to be louder than the next guy, and this album was recorded in that manner.  At the same output level, Death Magnetic seems like it may be 50% louder than say Master of Puppets.  It’s like it’s intentionally recorded poorly,” says Lykins.

So some closing advice to recordists out there: Before you start handing out copies of your music to your friends or a distributor, find someone else to give it a critical listen and take their suggestions seriously. You don't want to end up an example of what not to do or the butt of a running joke at your local high school.

Crowdsource: Vinyl Lives

What does classic rock legend Bruce Springsteen, Indy rock group The Decembrists, heavy metal band Iron Maiden and pop-vocalist Adele have in common? They’re still putting out records on vinyl.

Some younger folks may have never seen a record before. If this is you, go into your parents basement and look around for old orange crates. They’re full of these round, black plastic things with grooves on them. That is a record and it used to be the way people listened to music. Now try picking that orange crate up. Aren’t you glad we have iPods nowadays?

In the home recording studio, we don’t mess with analog format anymore. It’s too expensive and time consuming for something that’s about the same quality as a low-end digital recording.  I wouldn’t even know where to buy a record press if I wanted to. But does this mean we’re missing out on something? Is there even a difference?

There’s always a rumor among vinyl lovers that records are a more accurate reproduction of the original performance. That may have been true 20 years ago when digital was in its infancy. But more powerful computers and better software actually makes digital more accurate than any physical medium like vinyl records or magnetic tape.

So why hasn’t vinyl gone out of this world completely?

Deirdre Glassford, a UC journalism student and music fanatic, isn’t picky about what medium her music is on. Glassford may not have a love of one over another, but because she’s not willing to pick a winner, vinyl lives on.

“I love ALL formats of music. My music collection is probably my prized possession,” says Glassford.  “It consists of Albums, cassettes, CDs and digital stuff. I used to work in a music store, so I own more CDs than anything else...but there are certain albums that I also own on vinyl, as well.”

Vinyl is an experience that isn’t limited to just listening to the music. There’s the feel, smell and size that isn’t as easily avoidable with other formats. And unlike CDs or mp3’s that can go everywhere, listening to vinyl is an activity that keeps you close to your wood-paneled den.

“The nostalgia and novelty of vinyl are very attractive to me,” says Perry S, a UC journalism student. “Though, when it comes to everyday listening I think I’d much rather have my iPod.”

There’s also an inheritance factor. Many people, including myself, have stacks of old records because they’ve been passed down by the previous generation.

“Then there's tons of old shit that I refuse to buy, again, because I have it on my parents' records. I figure eventually I'll buy one of those handy-dandy players that converts it all to MP3s, so it will be more readily available,” says Glassford.

Any difference in sound quality doesn’t seem to affect readers’ opinions one way or another. Perry compares the three competing formats:

“Though sound quality varies from file to file, the convenience of iPods and the like win over the novelty of vinyl or CDs. I'd even take a CD over vinyl for the quality.

Charlie Balcom, a UC communication a journalism student could live without vinyl.

“I never got interested in vinyl. The only experience I have with vinyl is Simon Pegg throwing records at zombies in Shawn of the Dead,” says Balcom.

The inconvenience of vinyl makes it an obsolete technology. Skipping tracks and mixing playlists from a library of thousands of songs is much more important than the nostalgic experience of listening to a record.

How long vinyl will keep spinning along before it's final demise is still to be seen. But at least none of my readers are die hard vinyl fans, which is a good thing if I ever want to get my music to them.

Setting Up a Cheap(ish) Home Studio

I know a lot of you aren't into home recording, but I wrote this a while back (although I never posted it). I want to give you a picture of what a modern home studio looks like, starting with the basics.
---
One thing you should know about me is that I'm cheap. If you're looking for advice on how to build a "professional" home studio this isn't the place for you. But for those of you without unlimited cash for room treatment and stacks of outboard gear, you've found a home in The Basement Music Studio.

Today, I want to focus on the four essential pieces of equipment that can get you started recording without severe damage to your wallet. Let's start with what you already have: a computer.

For recording one track at a time, any computer will work. I've used a 1.4 GHz Pentium 4 processor and 256 MB of RAM IBM ThinkPad laptop with good results. If you're not a spec nerd, let me put this into perspective: That would have been considered junk a decade ago. A high-end computer will let you work faster and without the hassles of an outdated machine, but there's no need to drop a fortune on today's most expensive computer if you're a soloist.

Mac has a reputation for being the best creativity platform, which is partly true. The system comes optimized and is made with quality parts- but you pay a premium for out-of-the-box performance. If you go the PC route, you'll need to tinker with your settings to optimize for recording, but it's a completely viable and lower cost alternative. The more important question is whether to go with a laptop or desktop. You probably have a laptop for school or work, so you can just use that to save some money. If you're looking for a dedicated recording machine, get a desktop. It's by far the most cost effective solution. If you know a bit about computers and you want to go the PC route, you can save hundreds of dollars building your own. Otherwise, any current Mac desktop will do everything you need. The only reason you need to settle on the side of Mac or PC is that the recording software (DAW) isn't always cross-platform.

A software digital audio workstation (DAW) is the software that records the audio to the computer, and is also used for editing process. There tons of different DAWs out there. Most run from about $100 up to a few thousand (industrial-grade ProTools 10 HD comes in at a whopping $2,499.) Unfortunately, you get what you pay for here. GarageBand for Mac is the cheapest and least functional without add-on$, but it'll get your music into the computer. I've had bad experience with the outdated Cubase 4 LE that still comes bundled with a few older interfaces, and I wouldn't recommend that for anyone.

A digital audio interface converts the analog sound from your mic or instrument to digital signal for your computer. Your sound card does the same thing, but unless you have a professional (not gaming or multimedia) level audio card (if you don't know if you have one or not, you don't), you'll be better off with a USB or Firewire interface. What matters most is the deciding how many inputs you'll need. If you're just by yourself, you'll only need two inputs. If you're in a full band, you'll need at least eight. Beware: When buying a USB mixer, it often has the amount of inputs you need, but only sends 2 channels to the computer. Save yourself an unnecessary purchase and  just get an interface.

Some neat interfaces, like my Zoom R16 shown above, combines interface
with DAW controller, and can even be used without the computer.

Another thing to think about when picking out an interface is whether it has available phantom power or not. If you're using a condenser microphone (discussed in next session), you'll need phantom power. If not, you can live without it.

A microphone. 
If you're doing anything more than plugging a bass guitar into your interface, you're going to need a mic. There's a million and a half review sites out there, so I'm not going to focus on one particular mic. Instead, let's just look at the two basic types of microphones and why you'd pick one over the other.

Dynamic mics are the heavy wand looking mics that you think of when you imagine a live performance. Most of them have a bulb cover at the end that blocks too much wind from registering. They are directional mics, meaning they only pick up noise from the front end, which makes them great at isolating sounds. They actually have a heavy spring in them that converts sound waves to electric signals. They're cheaper than condenser mics and much more durable. If you're recording loud instruments or sing rock music, you want need anything more than a dynamic mic.

Condenser mics are the same type that are in your cell phone. They're extremely sensitive, so you won't be using these in front of a loud guitar amp. But what they do excel at is capturing the human voice, acoustic instruments, and recording room ambiance. These are what you think of when you imagine someone singing in a studio. There's always a big disc in front of the mic, called a pop-screen. It's for softening 'P' and 'S' sounds that condensers tend to exaggerate. They're far more expensive than dynamic mics, but for classical, pop, country and hip hop vocals, there's no other way to go.

So there you have it; four pieces that can get you recording at home in no time.

Crowdsource: Is Music Cheating Listeners Part 2

When I got into digital recording, I started listening to music in a new way. My love for great instrumentation and harmony had to share some attention with the production of the album: dynamic range, stereo position, reverb, and all kinds of technical stuff the average listener hears but may not pay much attention to. Let’s just say there’s a ton of processes that go into making an album that I would consider engineering, not musicianship.

I blogged about Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters dissing the music industry for their over-reliance on digital tools to make music sound supernaturally good. Whether it’s digital or old fashioned analog, many musicians including Grohl himself can use these tools and techniques to cover up mistakes and add that post-performance sparkle to make it sound like it deserves a Grammy.

I started wondering if this was somehow cheating the listener, so I asked my readers if it actually mattered to them whether they’re hearing a genuine unedited performance or a technologically perfected recording.

“These days, people seem to expect their music to be perfect when it comes out because that is the trend in society today,” said Charlie Balcom, a UC Communication and Journalism student. “People have this idea that these million-dollar artists should be able to hit every note perfectly but this is only possible with a little help from a computer and other devices.”

Sam Weinberg, a UC journalism student, has great appreciation for old school musicians who had to perform without the crutch of technology.

“I grew up listening to the great jazz and blues composers, such as B.B. King, Count Basie, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington and many others. What did they have? Just their instruments, fellow band members and their talent,” said Weinberg.

Diedre Glassford, a UC journalism student, believes that a bit of post-recording work can be attributed to an artist’s perfectionism.

“Of course I think that music should rely on talent, but I don't think that having a little digital emphasis in the studio necessarily negates talent,” said Glassford.

“What I think is important to remember is that music is made for an audience to listen to and enjoy,” said Joe Doerger. “There isn't a magic formula for what makes a good sound - it's up to a listener to determine that.”

Doerger sums up what most people have been saying about the topic: it only matters if you like what you hear.

So just like Grohl and other recordists, listeners have their own ethic about the music they listen to as well.