[Dec [Cluskey]]

Hi gang

I have just uploaded my thoughts on a reasonable home studio .. in
other words, the best, most efficient and affordable studio for the
money ... at the moment. The article is at:

http://www.makehits.co.uk/art030.htm

This is aimed at good advice for a home studio owner wanting to keep
abreast of trends or a newbie wanting to part with his/her hard earned
dosh and get up and running fast.

Have I got it just about right? Your thoughts would make a difference
to an update.

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[Frank Stearns]

"Dec [Cluskey]" writes:

Hi gang

I have just uploaded my thoughts on a reasonable home studio .. in
other words, the best, most efficient and affordable studio for the
money ... at the moment. The article is at:

http://www.makehits.co.uk/art030.htm

This is aimed at good advice for a home studio owner wanting to keep
abreast of trends or a newbie wanting to part with his/her hard earned
dosh and get up and running fast.

Hi Dec -

From what I could see, you have some good thoughts here.

I must be honest, however -- the all-italics, all bold, pink font made me want to
want to gouge my eyes out! g (And then there was a micro-font for the photo
captions.)

Cute is cute, and perhaps bits of this design could be used sparingly. But the
upshot is that I wasn't able to read the whole thing. Hurt my eyes too much.

Now, maybe it's just my browser, but these visual elements seemed rather extreme.
Sometimes extremes in visual design -- if that's all there is -- leads to folks to
not stick around very long. "Boring" is good for plain old body text, as boring
doesn't distract from the good content.

In terms of content, I'll comment on one section: compressors. You're right, I
think, particularly in pop-rock field about outboard comps.

But I think there's hidden magic in sw compressors, even the lowly DigiRack comp
(and actually, the Digirack comp has perhaps the most flexible controls I've used
-- really great for my work, which is mostly classical and acoustic music).

The problem -- like many digital processors (comp, eq, reverb, et al) -- is that the
initial start-up settings are stupid. (This is likely the case of software guys
"picking initialization values" out of thin air that have nothing to do with making
music.)

If one can fully dive in deep with the various Digirack comp settings, you can get
some truly amazing performance from the inside the box.

Now, watch as I contradict myself regarding the Bombfactory comps: they're terrible.
Mainly, in my estimation, because the controls are lying. There appears to be
something wrong with how the controls change the processing. They don't seem to do
what they say. Other SW comps are much better in terms of "twist knob, get what you
expect".

Anyway. Nice effort. I'd like to read the whole thing once my eyes stop buzzing. w

Thanks,

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[swanny]

On 27/09/2011 11:16 PM, Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
Hi gang

I have just uploaded my thoughts on a reasonable home studio .. in
other words, the best, most efficient and affordable studio for the
money ... at the moment. The article is at:

http://www.makehits.co.uk/art030.htm

This is aimed at good advice for a home studio owner wanting to keep
abreast of trends or a newbie wanting to part with his/her hard earned
dosh and get up and running fast.

Have I got it just about right? Your thoughts would make a difference
to an update.

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

Looks like a horrible endorsement for Apple and DigiDesign.
Nothing objective here.

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Sep 27, 5:44*pm, Frank Stearns
wrote:
Hi Dec -

From what I could see, you have some good thoughts here.

I must be honest, however -- the all-italics, all bold, pink font made me want to
want to gouge my eyes out! g *(And then there was a micro-font for the photo
In terms of content, I'll comment on one section: compressors. You're right, I
think, particularly in pop-rock field about outboard comps.

But I think there's hidden magic in sw compressors, even the lowly DigiRack comp
(and actually, the Digirack comp has perhaps the most flexible controls I've used

Frank

Thank you for the kind comments ... the article is getting good
reaction ...

I shall kill the designer! I must say it looked Okay to me .... but
then again I had Optical Express laser treatment ... [don't do it! It
is not what it says on the tin.]

I was fascinated to hear what you said about Bomb Factory ...

I am a guy who really wants to hear a comressor working and Bomb
Factory was the best at that ... although i would not use SW
compressors of choice ... I shall have a fresh look at the Digirack
ones you talk about.

Thanks again.

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Sep 27, 11:07*pm, swanny wrote:

Looks like a horrible endorsement for Apple and DigiDesign

Swanny

Not intended!

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[Meindert Sprang]

"swanny" wrote in message
d.com...
Looks like a horrible endorsement for Apple and DigiDesign.
Nothing objective here.

Just based on experience, I guess. I work with Windows and Mac machines
extensively and I share Dec's opinion. And it is logical too. A mac is a
closed platform with far less variables than a PC. Thus better controlable
and easier to make it a system that works out of the box with most add-ons.

Meindert

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote in message
...
On Sep 27, 11:07 pm, swanny wrote:

Looks like a horrible endorsement for Apple and DigiDesign

Agreed.

Not intended!

With all due respect, then you are simply too ignorant of the actual
marketplace to make swweping public pronouncements like those.

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Sep 28, 1:21*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

With all due respect, then you are simply too ignorant of the actual
marketplace to make swweping public pronouncements like those.

Arny

I presented the article as the best current advice .... not an
endorsement in any way, shape or form. I apologise unreservedly if I
gave that impression.

Strangely. all the comments coming back do nothing but confirm what I
say .... and some comments can add such value to the next article ...
such as advice on Sonar, Digital Performer .... allying yourself with
a PC guru who can upgrade and rationalise a PC specifically for music
use. Thus dramatically cutting the on going cost of maintaining/
upgrading a studio music computer. This is the main complaint re.
Macs ... the cost and continual costs of upgrading.

Again I apologise for any unintended marketing of Mac and Digidesign
[Avid]

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Sep 27, 5:44*pm, Frank Stearns
wrote:

I must be honest, however -- the all-italics, all bold, pink font made me want to
want to gouge my eyes out! g *(And then there was a micro-font for the photo
captions.)


Frank

Whoops!

There was a font fault in the version of the site uploaded ... it went
unnoticed. That is why you saw everything in large magenta italic
font ... sorry ....

And thank you for alerting us. All fixed now.

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.makehits.co.uk/blog

[Neil Gould]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
On Sep 28, 1:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

With all due respect, then you are simply too ignorant of the actual
marketplace to make swweping public pronouncements like those.

Arny

I presented the article as the best current advice .... not an
endorsement in any way, shape or form. I apologise unreservedly if I
gave that impression.

The problem with "best current advice" is that this is a subjective matter.
So, just to offer another opinion that goes counter to the raves you said
you've received; there is no factual basis for claims that one platform is
superior to others for creating the kind of "professional" quality home
studio that you are writing about. In fact, PCs have been capable of pro
audio and video editing / production since before the existance of the
MacIntosh. I have both PCs and Macs, and have been producing pro video since
the '70s using dedicated hardware and a variety of specially configured
personal computers such as the Apple ][, PC and Amiga. All were used for
pro-level productions, and if one had the money, they could be used in "home
studios" as well.

Another false impression is that there is a price advantage when using a PC,
but there is little or none when the PC is properly configured for pro media
production, especially once applications are factored in, so the choice of
platform would be better if made based on other factors, such as preferences
for particular applications or requirements for other software or hardware
interfaces.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Phil W[_3_]]

"swanny":
On 27/09/2011 11:16 PM, Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
Hi gang

I have just uploaded my thoughts on a reasonable home studio .. in
other words, the best, most efficient and affordable studio for the
money ... at the moment. The article is at:

http://www.makehits.co.uk/art030.htm

This is aimed at good advice for a home studio owner wanting to keep
abreast of trends or a newbie wanting to part with his/her hard earned
dosh and get up and running fast.

Have I got it just about right? Your thoughts would make a difference
to an update.

Dec [Cluskey]

Looks like a horrible endorsement for Apple and DigiDesign.
Nothing objective here.

Just like, what Dec posted on various newsgroups some years ago. Even the
content hasn´t changed that much. Hey, Mac G5s are not sold anymore since
how many years?!

Funny:
he writes "don´t buy Behringer or Mackie mixers!" in his article, although
he´s repeatedly written here, that his group uses a Behringer mixer for live
gigs and how good it works and sounds. Besides that, in his video blog on
Youtube, he´s sitting in front of a 19" rack filled with various Behringer
units.

Behringer gear definitely isn´t the best quality available, but for home
recording projects, their mixers are quite okay. Dec obviously hasn´t tried
the more than horrible Alesis Multimix crap yet. Once, you´ve had to used
one, you´ll gracefully welcome a Behringer mixer!

BTW: I know of a well-known DJ, who made several albums with very low-key
gear (incl. a Mackie mixer and a rather "cheap" Terratec soundcard) and
released at least one or two through major labels... I don´t know, what DAW
software he used, but probably not PT on a Mac. Might have been Logic on a
PC.

In the end, most of the people using "cheap" Behringer/Mackie grade stuff
for recording, don´t record in acoustically optimal rooms. Thus, better
sounding preamps and converters might bring out even more, what problems
their rooms have.

Two of the guys who I regularly record with, use Macs with the latest
Logic. It has crashed just like my Windows with Cubase. I´ve also seen Mac
G5s with a big PT system crashing, when trying to load PT´s own simple
limiter plug-in!
That´s only beyond ridiculous and besides that, I haven´t seen any other DAW
with such a user-unfriendly GUI as PT. And how about "plug-in delay
compensation" in PT, is this piece of junk code finally able to do, what
other DAWs could do already 6 or more years ago?!
Based on those experiences, I don´t trust any system
more or less than the alternatives. If anybody wants to believe the "Mac is
soooo much better"-voodoo, they usually can´t be helped in my experience.
For *any* computer system, that you want to use for audio production, you´ll
need dedicated interface hardware. Apple´s computers are in no way superior
to Windows PCs in that regard. What´s important, are good and stable
drivers - and I´ve seen bad drivers crash a "professional" Mac Pro last
summer.


Phil

[Frank Stearns]

"Dec [Cluskey]" writes:

- snips -

I shall kill the designer! I must say it looked Okay to me .... but

Looks like you got it fixed! Perhaps there had been a missing "" after one of your
headings. I'll read it through as time allows.


I was fascinated to hear what you said about Bomb Factory ...

I am a guy who really wants to hear a comressor working and Bomb
Factory was the best at that ... although i would not use SW
compressors of choice ... I shall have a fresh look at the Digirack
ones you talk about.

And in my work I *don't* want to hear compression working... "Compression?
Classical music? Heathen! Infidel!" w But, in fact, I use it all the time -- just
with great care.

That's what can be good about the Digirack basic Compressor III (Protools 8; I
think the same ones are in 7.4 and 9) -- you really have a wide range of controls to
get (or "unget") a particular sound.

But it will take some jiggling about. Also, don't overlook the sidechain EQ for the
detector. Really handy for some situations, and I don't mean DSing (for that, the
dedicated PT DSer is quite good).

Other SW comps I've liked: Waves Renaissance Axx and the new (with PT8) Maxim. You
might like the Smack! comp. Not sure where I got it; I think it's from Digi and came
with PT8. Had a pop brass session once that just was uber sterile and dull as dirt.
To my own self-horror and chagrin, I used the distortion settings with Smack! and
things came alive. (Need to use crappier mics and pres on brass.)


There's also SPL's "Transient Designer" which is a specialized dynamics processor,
modeled with great care from their HW version. Highly useful for some things.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Sep 28, 3:25*pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
best regards,

Neil

Neil

Another false impression is that there is a price advantage when
using a PC,
but there is little or none when the PC is properly configured for pro
media
production, especially once applications are factored in, so the
choice of
platform would be better if made based on other factors, such as
preferences
for particular applications or requirements for other software or
hardware
interfaces.

Excellent observation ....

In the next update of the article I shall address this ... most guys
who champion PC over Mac would seem to have huge computer
knowledge ... and capable of stripping down, replacing motherboards
etc. .... so my observation in the article is valid ... the average
music guy wants the best equipment that will 'work out of the box' and
be 'fit for purpose' .... most guys who contact me simply want
that .... with no intimate knowldge of the gear they are using
required.

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Sep 28, 4:19*pm, "Phil W" wrote:
.. Apple s computers are in no way superior
to Windows PCs in that regard. What s important, are good and stable
drivers - and I ve seen bad drivers crash a "professional" Mac Pro last
summer.


Phil

Good stuff ... my Goodness you know how to rant [huge grin!]

It has to be said that I go by the 'trust your ear not the brand'
philosophy ... that is why I never knock Behringer ... except for
their reliability ... but then the cost factor has to be appreciated
there. In other discussions I have said that we have Behringer Xenyx
in our live concert rig and give the reasons ... also Behringer
Multicom and give the reasons. Size, configuration and ease of
replacement being top of the list. Not price.

But the article is intended to give the honestly best opinion around
about 'studio' equipment not live. And yes, some Behringer products
have their place in a top class home studio set ups ... that is my
opinion and the opinion of many I have questioned and observed.

The main factor that is coming out of soliciting comments is that PC
is good so long as you have the knowledge to upgrade and improve ...
also strip out the unnecessary gubbins to improve performance. Or
have a tame friend/expert available to do same.

The Mac seems to win hands down as a 'straight out of the box and
working' music facilitation tool.

ProTools seems to win hands down on ease of working with others,
sharing files and sessions easily and having the best 'buddy' backup
as most studios have a ProTools expert engineer who will share
knowledge easily. I am also advised by many that the tutorial backup
is rather good. It also would seem to win in the 'credibility' stakes
- a sometimes forgotten aspect for home studioists.

Many thanks Phil

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Sep 28, 4:27*pm, Frank Stearns
wrote:
..
And in my work I *don't* want to hear compression working... *"Compression?
Classical music? Heathen! Infidel!" w But, in fact, I use it all the time -- just
with great care.

Frank
Mobile Audio

*.

Frank

The font problem was not as simple as that ... way beyond our guys ...
but we have a fabulous guy in LA who fixes stuff in seconds ...
trouble is he won't tell us how he does it [grin!]

I had a feeling you were a 'use compression but don't want to hear it'
guy [another grin!]

I tell the story of a big studio owner [I won't divulge his name] who
bought two Lexicon 960s when they first came out.

He actually said to me, although he always denies it: "Dec, this
machine is incredible .... there is a patch on there that lets you put
as much reverb on as you like and you can't hear it .... incredible!"

I will have a look at those compression plug ins .... I am died in the
wool 'bringing the mix back into the huge desk with all the outboard
stuff ' I have never used any plug in that has impressed me enough to
change. It is the perceived size of the mix that I like and it always
has and still continues to work for me.

However I am using more and more on board sound modules and the large
sample library stuff [e.g. Symphonic Choirs] so I guess I will
gradually have to find on board compression and FX.

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Sep 28, 6:00*pm, Karamako wrote:
Others pointed the Mac/PT bias in your article. I think there is also a
slight contradiction between the concepts of "home studio" and "industry

Ali

I definitely tried not to have a bias ... just an honest 'gathering'
of all the thoughts knocking around and the 'real' story on what the
big guys are using ... whilst being ever mindful of the pocket of
music makers.

I have always lived by and advised: 'you are in this business to make
money not to spend money' ... so I always think as if I had not a cent
spare ... a good way to operate, I feel. I am very conscious that
guys should strive to have Industry Standard gear or at least know
about it. It is, after all, 'Industry Standard' for a reason.

I also feel that each piece of gear has got to earn its keep .. not
just sit there to have the brand name admired.

I am grateful for your comment.

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[Frank Stearns]

"Dec [Cluskey]" writes:

Frank

I had a feeling you were a 'use compression but don't want to hear it'
guy [another grin!]

Generally, yes. Once in a great while, no.

Typically, I'm using compression to fix a dynamic problem (and if you stop to think
about it, there are a huge number of dynamic problems that can crop up; some created
by the player, some by the instrument, some by the recording chain, some in
the context of the mix).

Often I'll using a light, low-ratio comp setting to dynamically correct a spot mic
on a classical voice or instrument. Close up, the dynamics are exaggerated. In the
mix, you need to bring them back to something that seems "natural".

I typically never use a compressor to "tight mix" an instrument or voice. Given that
gain automation is so fast and easy I'll usually fix those note-to-note dynamic
issues with bump/dip in the gain line, and do it nearly in one pass. Maybe a little
comp after that for "glue."

My settings are all over the place from time constant extremes to ratio
extremes. Depends on the what needs a tweak. Sometimes hard-ass settings are used to
expose subtle aspects of an instrument.

You know, using the DigiRack comp something you might like would be to dynamically
manipulate an external key signal. For example, dupe the target track. Put a comp
(or gate or reverse reverb processor) on it. Bus the result over to the key input of
another comp on the main track.

Fun with toyz.


I tell the story of a big studio owner [I won't divulge his name] who
bought two Lexicon 960s when they first came out.

He actually said to me, although he always denies it: "Dec, this
machine is incredible .... there is a patch on there that lets you put
as much reverb on as you like and you can't hear it .... incredible!"

Had a hotshot band once; we were mixing on an old Quad-8 2082. Lo EQ band select had
an "off" (bypass) selection far left. Rather hard to see the bypass position,
though, unless you were looking right at it.

While putting together a ref mix, band members claimed we just "weren't getting it"
and they wanted to do the mix. Fine. Whatever. We stoodby and watched.

Several passes and twisting of EQ knobs... "ooh, that's better; yeah, that's
great... A little more mid, yeah, perfect. Touch more bottom. Yeah! Hot!" Smug
*******s.

Only problem: all the EQs were bypassed. No one told them until AFTER the check
cleared.


I will have a look at those compression plug ins .... I am died in the
wool 'bringing the mix back into the huge desk with all the outboard
stuff ' I have never used any plug in that has impressed me enough to
change. It is the perceived size of the mix that I like and it always
has and still continues to work for me.

Understood. Much of the same mind myself not so long ago, I hot-rodded a lovely old
Soundcraft for summing. It had its charm, but after a while I seemed to get a
new handle on ITB mixing. Nothing really added by the external sum that I
couldn't replicate in digital land. Best of all worlds now; could never go back.
YMMV.


However I am using more and more on board sound modules and the large
sample library stuff [e.g. Symphonic Choirs] so I guess I will
gradually have to find on board compression and FX.

It does take a while to settle in, I've found. Many years on beloved old
large-format consoles is hard to let go of -- they're just so much fun! But then, in
another way, so is a keyboard and mouse and several screens. (More heresy. Forgive
me. w)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[[email protected]]

Frank Stearns wrote:
: Several passes and twisting of EQ knobs... "ooh, that's better; yeah, that's
: great... A little more mid, yeah, perfect. Touch more bottom. Yeah! Hot!" Smug
: *******s.
: Only problem: all the EQs were bypassed. No one told them until AFTER the check
: cleared.

That is hilarious.

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Sep 29, 3:15*am, Frank Stearns
wrote:
It does take a while to settle in, I've found. Many years on beloved old
large-format consoles is hard to let go of -- they're just so much fun! But then, in
another way, so is a keyboard and mouse and several screens. (More heresy.. Forgive
me. w)


Frank

Only problem: all the EQs were bypassed. No one told them
until AFTER the check
cleared.

Loved that story ....

Our live sound engineer [of huge repute] ... whenever he has 'dick'
approach the sound desk with a 'punter' remark or piece of 'punter'
advice will always say: "I'll apply the DFA button" ... works
everytime ... they go away smiling and happy that they have been
listened to ....

DFA? Does F*** All. [excuse language ... just for the gag!]

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[Neil Gould]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
On Sep 28, 3:25 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
best regards,

Neil

Neil

Another false impression is that there is a price advantage when
using a PC,
but there is little or none when the PC is properly configured for pro
media
production, especially once applications are factored in, so the
choice of
platform would be better if made based on other factors, such as
preferences
for particular applications or requirements for other software or
hardware
interfaces.

Excellent observation ....

In the next update of the article I shall address this ... most guys
who champion PC over Mac would seem to have huge computer
knowledge ... and capable of stripping down, replacing motherboards
etc. .... so my observation in the article is valid ... the average
music guy wants the best equipment that will 'work out of the box' and
be 'fit for purpose' .... most guys who contact me simply want
that .... with no intimate knowldge of the gear they are using
required.

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

If "out of the box" operation for "average guys" are important criteria,
then it may be a better article if you drop the "professional" from your
home studio concept. A long-held adage for choosing a computer is that one
should first choose the required applications, then choose a system that
supports those applications best. What you've described in your article is a
purely amature approach. More importantly, the computer is the *least* of
the issues involved in creating a professional recording environment. Read
some of the many topics in this ng on shaping room response, for example.

--
best regards,

Neil


--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
But the article is intended to give the honestly best opinion around
about 'studio' equipment not live. And yes, some Behringer products
have their place in a top class home studio set ups ... that is my
opinion and the opinion of many I have questioned and observed.

Then a good summary would be, "Don't buy stuff at your local music store,
buy it from a dealer that knows good pro audio gear."

The main factor that is coming out of soliciting comments is that PC
is good so long as you have the knowledge to upgrade and improve ...
also strip out the unnecessary gubbins to improve performance. Or
have a tame friend/expert available to do same.

I would agree with that. The advantage of the PC is that there are a lot
more tame experts out there. The disadvantage is that a lot of those experts
aren't really as expert as they think they are.

ProTools seems to win hands down on ease of working with others,
sharing files and sessions easily and having the best 'buddy' backup
as most studios have a ProTools expert engineer who will share
knowledge easily. I am also advised by many that the tutorial backup
is rather good. It also would seem to win in the 'credibility' stakes
- a sometimes forgotten aspect for home studioists.

This is unfortunately true. However, it's good to point out that ProTools
is the 900 pound gorilla in the room, sitting right in the middle of the
DAW market. There are cheaper DAW systems and there are more expensive
special-purpose DAW systems, but if you go into a random studio sadly you
are apt to see ProTools.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote in message
...
On Sep 28, 4:19 pm, "Phil W" wrote:

The main factor that is coming out of soliciting comments is that PC
is good so long as you have the knowledge to upgrade and improve ...
also strip out the unnecessary gubbins to improve performance. Or
have a tame friend/expert available to do same.

Very ancient and obsolete wisdom. It is now completely possible to take a
even a minimal PC out if its box, even so humble as a sub-$300 Netbook,
plug in an external audio interface, load recording software and get down to
work. It has been this way for at least a decade.

No need to upgrade or improve, no need to strip out anything that came with
the PC.

The Mac seems to win hands down as a 'straight out of the box and
working' music facilitation tool.

True, it seems this way to many people who are more rooted in a narrow
distant past than the present.

Dec, you need to write this on a card and take the card out frequently to
remind yourself:

"Making quality recordings has always been more dependent on things that are
outside the box you use to make recordings." Digital technology has only
made that more true than ever.

ProTools seems to win hands down on ease of working with others,
sharing files and sessions easily and having the best 'buddy' backup
as most studios have a ProTools expert engineer who will share
knowledge easily.

I thought this was about a home studio? Typical home studio use is
irrelevant to every point that you've raised in the previous paragraph.

Look Dec I'm quite sure that irrelevant things like well known facts and
personal experiences aren't going to rectify your personal situation, but
what the hey, I thought I'd take a try at it. ;-)

BTW, don't take any of the above to indicate that I think that Macs or Pro
Tools are in any way undesirable. Speaking from personal hands-on
experience, Macs are fine, and so is Pro Tools.

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/29/2011 8:33 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

If "out of the box" operation for "average guys" are important criteria,
then it may be a better article if you drop the "professional" from your
home studio concept. A long-held adage for choosing a computer is that one
should first choose the required applications, then choose a system that
supports those applications best. What you've described in your article is a
purely amature approach. More importantly, the computer is the *least* of
the issues involved in creating a professional recording environment.

To reinforce your point, most "What to buy this year to make
a professional recording studio on any budget" usually don't
include the computer in the budget, on the assumption that
the reader already has one. But most (both readers and
authors) will advise that you dedicate a computer to audio
work, buy a premium (not grocery store) model or build it
from components that it seems everyone is born with the
knowledge to select the best of, and be prepared for some
tweaking. Or buy a Mac.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2011-Sep-29 08:33, Neil Gould writes:
If "out of the box" operation for "average guys" are important
criteria, then it may be a better article if you drop the
"professional" from your home studio concept. A long-held adage for
choosing a computer is that one should first choose the required
applications, then choose a system that supports those applications
best. What you've described in your article is a purely amature
approach. More importantly, the computer is the *least* of the
issues involved in creating a professional recording environment.
Read some of the many topics in this ng on shaping room response,
for example.

I would agree, and with SCott's comments as well re pt being hte 900 pound gorilla in the room. WE get the amateurs
agonizing over their daw when they should be more concerned
about their tracking and monitoring environment, etc.

I may not be pt native compatible but I can get to broadcast wav which is able to be imported by any daw about anywhere
I'd go for further production, or send a client for that
matter. There are ways to work around that one, but there's no working around a bad working environment or cumbersome
work flow. Most folks in the "home studio" category want to spend their time making music and this means putting the
time in up front on the tracking and monitoring environment. This is true even for the guy who doesn't actually track
anything but compiles his work from sample loops, etc. That listening chain is everything.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/29/2011 9:59 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

It is now completely possible to take a
even a minimal PC out if its box, even so humble as a sub-$300 Netbook,
plug in an external audio interface, load recording software and get down to
work. It has been this way for at least a decade.

Scholars differ on this issue. Me, for one. I have a Toshiba
netbook that I can't get to work reliably with the Focusrite
Scarlett (USB 2) interfaces. It works fine on all my other
computers here. I've done due diligence and sometimes it
just clicks and crackles. And then there are issues of
compatibility with drivers and Firewire chip sets.

I think you're right if you your audio interface is the
computer's built-in sound card. Those always work. So do
most outboard interfaces that use USB 1.1. But if you want
better quality or more input and output channels, then
you're at the mercy of the hardware developers and their
support software.

Nearly all audio I/O hardware that works on a Mac uses the
Apple Core Audio system built in to the Snow Leopard and now
Lion versions of OS-x. Since they're all designing to the
same driver they have a fighting chance at compatibility. At
least they don't have to test with a wide variety of
systems. But no PC is really the same as any other.

"Making quality recordings has always been more dependent on things that are
outside the box you use to make recordings."

This is true, but if your recorder doesn't work, you can't
make recordings. And when you're building your recorder out
of off the shelf hardware and software, you have a fighting
chance, but no guarantees that it will just work when you
plug it together.


ProTools seems to win hands down on ease of working with others,
sharing files and sessions easily and having the best 'buddy' backup
as most studios have a ProTools expert engineer who will share
knowledge easily.

I thought this was about a home studio? Typical home studio use is
irrelevant to every point that you've raised in the previous paragraph.

Guitar Center sells boatloads of Pro Tools systems to people
with home studios. First off, it's now a pretty good system,
and second, it's what everybody else has (so it MUST be
good). Sure, there are people using Audacity (even running
on Linux) and Reaper and Cubase or Live (thsee days often
because it came with some hardware they bought), but Pro
Tools is the software of choice even for hobbyists.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
: But most (both readers and
: authors) will advise that you dedicate a computer to audio
: work, buy a premium (not grocery store) model or build it
: from components that it seems everyone is born with the
: knowledge to select the best of, and be prepared for some
: tweaking. Or buy a Mac.

Some people who build a home studio ARE computer-savvy... for them,
they might prefer the open architecture of the PC, the ability to
tweak it to their exact desire, and the possible cost savings.
It's not a one-size-fits-all.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 9/29/2011 9:59 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

It is now completely possible to take a
even a minimal PC out if its box, even so humble as a sub-$300 Netbook,
plug in an external audio interface, load recording software and get down
to
work. It has been this way for at least a decade.

Scholars differ on this issue. Me, for one. I have a Toshiba netbook that
I can't get to work reliably with the Focusrite Scarlett (USB 2)
interfaces. It works fine on all my other computers here. I've done due
diligence and sometimes it just clicks and crackles. And then there are
issues of compatibility with drivers and Firewire chip sets.

Note that I said "is possible", not "is sure to work in every case".
Nothing works in every case, even with Pro Tools running on a Mac.

I think you're right if you your audio interface is the computer's
built-in sound card. Those always work. So do most outboard interfaces
that use USB 1.1. But if you want better quality or more input and output
channels, then you're at the mercy of the hardware developers and their
support software.

On balance, a one man studio can be well served by the simplest USB 1.1
interface.

Nearly all audio I/O hardware that works on a Mac uses the Apple Core
Audio system built in to the Snow Leopard and now Lion versions of OS-x.
Since they're all designing to the same driver they have a fighting chance
at compatibility. At least they don't have to test with a wide variety of
systems. But no PC is really the same as any other.

Neither are the Macs. They are far more similar, but "the same" is a very
elusive standard.

"Making quality recordings has always been more dependent on things that
are
outside the box you use to make recordings."

This is true, but if your recorder doesn't work, you can't make
recordings. And when you're building your recorder out of off the shelf
hardware and software, you have a fighting chance, but no guarantees that
it will just work when you plug it together.

Nothing is certain, but a USB 1.1 audio interface and Audacity can't be beat
for cost and value. Comapred to what has been used in the past to make great
recordings, its pretty posh. Not current SOTA but very posh in the cosmic
scheme of things.


ProTools seems to win hands down on ease of working with others,
sharing files and sessions easily and having the best 'buddy' backup
as most studios have a ProTools expert engineer who will share
knowledge easily.

I thought this was about a home studio? Typical home studio use is
irrelevant to every point that you've raised in the previous paragraph.

Guitar Center sells boatloads of Pro Tools systems to people with home
studios. First off, it's now a pretty good system, and second, it's what
everybody else has (so it MUST be good).

Yes but lets be truthful - they are buying it because it is Pro Tools and
not becasue it is the only or even the best way to get good recordings.

Sure, there are people using Audacity (even running on Linux) and Reaper
and Cubase or Live (thsee days often because it came with some hardware
they bought), but Pro Tools is the software of choice even for hobbyists.

I would never choose Pro Tools. Back in the day when I started out doing
recording, it had some pretty severe technical flaws relating to
insufficient precision for calculations.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2011-Sep-29 14:40, Mike Rivers writes:
Sure, there are people using Audacity (even running
on Linux) and Reaper and Cubase or Live (thsee days often
because it came with some hardware they bought), but Pro
Tools is the software of choice even for hobbyists.

RIght, and even though it isn't what I choose to use for
capture in the field for many reasons, were I advising
somebody who is a musician who wanted to put together his
own home studio I'd tell him to just bite the bullet, get a
pt rig, find somebody in the area, again gc can probably
help who will teach him the ins and outs of interacting with pt and then concentrate on working with him on the other
elements of a home studio he could actually go into when
opportunity knocked and get some music down. After all,
there are enough learning curves on his way to making usable music come out the speakers after it's been recorded. AT
least with a pt rig that part's not the never ending hassle
of did an os update break this, or did something break that
or ...

Otoh if the guy's already got mixing console and the other
stuff together and doesn't want to even deal with the pt
learning curve my suggestion today would be the JOeco black
box, bring the band in, arm tracks, hit red button, roll
disk, capture music.
OF course this is with the caveat that they intend to take
the tracks elsewhere possibly for further tweaking.



Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/29/2011 5:23 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

On balance, a one man studio can be well served by the simplest USB 1.1
interface.

The simplest USB 1.1 interface that I know of doesn't have
mic preamps. But I suppose there are some that do and that
aren't too bad. But I'm amazed at what some people, even
beginners, think they can hear, and tend to buy more quality
and features than their music justifies. But it doesn't
hurt, as long as they don't buy something that will be
difficult to get going.

Nothing is certain, but a USB 1.1 audio interface and Audacity can't be beat
for cost and value. Comapred to what has been used in the past to make great
recordings, its pretty posh. Not current SOTA but very posh in the cosmic
scheme of things.

Well, maybe on paper, but people like to feel good about the
gear that they're using. Call it pseudo psychoacoustics, but
if it doesn't cost enough, they won't think it sounds very
good. And given what goes into it (which includes the skill
with which it's used, not just the music), it probably
doesn't sound very good. But if they replace that cheap
interface with something that costs a few hundred bucks,
it'll sound better even it the spec sheets look pretty much
alike.

Guitar Center sells boatloads of Pro Tools systems to people with home
studios.

Yes but lets be truthful - they are buying it because it is Pro Tools and
not becasue it is the only or even the best way to get good recordings.

This is true in most cases, but the point is that they're
buying it and using it, and it adds to the size of the user
base.

I would never choose Pro Tools. Back in the day when I started out doing
recording, it had some pretty severe technical flaws relating to
insufficient precision for calculations.

That's true, but it's not the case now. Are you going to let
past performance stop you from being part of the club? You
have better reasons than that for not joining.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff