[yish313]

Its always been said that you cant get close to a major studio sound with a home studio, but what is the missing link that seperates the two, or why should I choose an "M-Audio" interface over an "Apogee" interface or "Pro-Tools" interface? All three can be installed to my PC, on which i have a plethora of music and talent as well, but right now im stuck with the cheaper of the brands and i feel that this may not be the most beneficial to my career as wellas my craft.

Will taking my current sound system and pluging the whole thing up to a different interface change the way in which i here the sonic quality of my work;

Am i just ranting or what.

If money was not a problem, then what would make you choose one or the other, Is it just hyped the marketing geared to pull me into its oblivious hold? or is it the fact that the price of the two are miles apart?

OR

Is there a [Sonic] Difference!!!! Thats what I need to know.

I have a [M-Audio Delta 44] with [my] PC...Cubase SX as my composing system.

If i changed [my] interface to a [Pro-Tools] hardware interface instead, would that not make the overall [Sonic] qulaity of my compositions sound exuberantly better.

Ive taken my tracks and [imported] them in to Pro-Tools and nothing happened, but was it not converted by the sound card to be delivered as a wav file or was it. Does the software change its sonics? is protools software handling any diffrent than cubase that it would make it sound better.(dont think so)"but"(please correct me if im wrong!!)

At this point when ever i load something of someone elses work, the sonic quality of the different tracks float on each other like {melting butter}.

Better explained...
A soft and silky texture to the sound itself, whether the composition is [wack] or [not]. I here it on other peoples work all the time,[even before it has been touched for mixing or mastering].

Im mean you can mix a garbage song and its composition cannot be helped, i dont believe that's my problem

Could someone take a listen at the sonic quality of my production and offer me some insight. I have done an exhaustive search and have not found the answer as of yet. So far a lot of speculation but, no hard cold facts. Hey, download some of my work and play it through your system and tell me what's wrong with the sonic quality of me and my team's work.

+++ http://www.thaproducerz.com +++

Call me delusional or what ever but if I dont fix this one situation with my production's sonic quality...Im afraid 20 years has just been flushed down a blue water drain.


Any comments, suggestions, good or bad are Welcome.

musically yours,


Yish from Detroit.




Hey maybe im just a blithering idiot who hears a non exitstent problem in his music and needs to just shut the hell up and make music.

or maybe i just a hear a cheap sound through a cheap interface?



excuse me for any typos and the long writting style

yish313 wrote:

Its always been said that you cant get close to a major studio sound
with a home studio, but what is the missing link that seperates the
two,

A pro studio will have great sounding rooms and experienced engineers.
Home studios often don't have either.

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com

In article writes:

Its always been said that you cant get close to a major studio sound
with a home studio, but what is the missing link that seperates the
two, or why should I choose an "M-Audio" interface over an "Apogee"
interface or "Pro-Tools" interface?

The reason to choose an M-Audio over an Apogee is that until you know
what ELSE separates an amateur home studio from a professionally
designed and managed pro studio is more than the equipment, you
should save some money in places where it doesn't make a big
difference and and put it toward things that make a bigger difference.
Those things might be more expensive than the difference in cost
between two audio input devicees (like construction materials and
labor, or high quality monitor speakers, or great mics) but if you
save a little here and a little there on things where the "return on
investment" won't be very high, you'll find that in time you can
afford to make some significant improvements in your studio - things
that will improve your sound more than buying a single piece of
hardware.

If money was not a problem, then what would make you choose one or the
other

The small difference in performance that you might be able to hear if
you spent enough money in other places so that you could hear that
difference. There's little point in making improvements that only
someone else (like the mastering engineer, or the dog) can hear.

I have a [M-Audio Delta 44] with [my] PC...Cubase SX as my composing
system.

If i changed [my] interface to a [Pro-Tools] hardware interface
instead, would that not make the overall [Sonic] qulaity of my
compositions sound exuberantly better.

Absolutely not.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"yish313" wrote in message
...

Its always been said that you cant get close to a major studio sound
with a home studio, but what is the missing link that seperates the
two, or why should I choose an "M-Audio" interface over an "Apogee"
interface or "Pro-Tools" interface? All three can be installed to my
PC, on which i have a plethora of music and talent as well, but right
now im stuck with the cheaper of the brands and i feel that this may
not be the most beneficial to my career as wellas my craft.

Will taking my current sound system and pluging the whole thing up to a
different interface change the way in which i here the sonic quality of
my work;

If so, the difference will be very slight and subtle.

Am i just ranting or what.

If money was not a problem, then what would make you choose one or the
other, Is it just hyped the marketing geared to pull me into its
oblivious hold? or is it the fact that the price of the two are miles
apart?

OR

Is there a [Sonic] Difference!!!! Thats what I need to know.

I have a [M-Audio Delta 44] with [my] PC...Cubase SX as my composing
system.

If i changed [my] interface to a [Pro-Tools] hardware interface
instead, would that not make the overall [Sonic] qulaity of my
compositions sound exuberantly better.

It would not.

Ive taken my tracks and [imported] them in to Pro-Tools and nothing
happened, but was it not converted by the sound card to be delivered as
a wav file or was it. Does the software change its sonics? is protools
software handling any diffrent than cubase that it would make it sound
better.(dont think so)"but"(please correct me if im wrong!!)

No. You might have different effects available, and your workflow may be
different, but the overall sonic quality will be essentially the same.

At this point when ever i load something of someone elses work, the
sonic quality of the different tracks float on each other like {melting
butter}.

Better explained...
A soft and silky texture to the sound itself, whether the composition
is [wack] or [not]. I here it on other peoples work all the time,[even
before it has been touched for mixing or mastering].

There are plenty of differences. They use:

1) Better microphones, through...

2) better-quality preamps and, maybe, processing, in a...

3) better room, and they...

4) have more experience.

The interface makes a difference, but a very small one. I used a Delta 66
for years (same as the Delta 44 except for having an additional S/PDIF
input), and it was a thoroughly decent converter. Not in the ultra-high-end
league, but its deficiencies were on the subtractive side rather than the
additive (translation: it didn't have quite the resolution of, say, an
Apogee, but it didn't add harshness or grit). I made perfectly fine
recordings on it, when I fed it good material to record.

Believe all of us: whatever's wrong with your recording process, it will not
be fixed by changing from a Delta 44 to something else.

Peace,
Paul

On 2005-01-20, yish313 wrote:

Its always been said that you cant get close to a major studio sound
with a home studio, but what is the missing link that seperates the
two,

As a musician, you might be underestimating the importance of experience
and talent on the engineering side. You also might not realize just how
much the room itself might be contributing to vocal or acoustic
instrument recording.

Your home rig, which you didn't really describe, is probably a good
start. It amounts to a decently quiet mixer and a damn good recorder,
right? You're not going to get much, even if you spend an order of
magnitude more money. You'll know when you get to the point where this
is the weakness in your system.

What are you monitoring with? If you want to spend money, that's
probably the best place to start. As for your recording interface,
your tracks aren't noisy, right? No problem there. You seem to have
a stylistic thing going on where everything is turned all the way up to
clip. That might be part of your problem, you're
compressing/limiting/normalizing, or whatever, too early in the process?

I'm not very experienced with recording, I'm just a musician, and I
don't know much, so don't take my comment to mean anything. But I did
listen to some of your tracks.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:24:08 +0000, yish313
wrote:


Its always been said that you cant get close to a major studio sound
with a home studio, but what is the missing link that seperates the
two,

A great-sounding room to record in, and an excellent listening
environment to mix in. To a slighlty lesser extent, the gear.

Al

[yish313]

Originally Posted by EricK

A pro studio will have great sounding rooms and experienced engineers.
Home studios often don't have either.

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com

I keep hearing about rooms and engineers i know all about room acoutics and engineering knowledge, however, what im hearing from amatuer work and pro work is sonic transperancy that i cant seem to capture.

i dont mean to be rude, but you all tell me its the room and the engineer or knowledge of engineering. Im listening to peoples work that hasnt been touched for mixing, sweeting, eqing or anything, there hasent been any vocals recorded and when i hear these songs its usually on a home stereo system or car radio. Im talking about people who have no idea what the hell a compresser does, but seem to have this sheen about their wack compositions.

What good would the room do or engineering for that matter, if you havent mixed, edit or recorded vocals. with that being said, you mean to tell me that if i composed a song strickly from a ProTools setup using nothing but VSTi instruments and samplers and i did the same song in Cubase with a delta 44 setup using nothing but VSTi instruments and no vocals or mix on either, that there would not be a difference.

Could you guys post kind of system that you are using and perhaps a link to your work that maybe i can hear...here is a link to mine www.thaproducerz.com

"james of tucson" wrote in
message atory.com
On 2005-01-20, yish313 wrote:

Its always been said that you cant get close to a major studio sound
with a home studio, but what is the missing link that seperates the
two,

As a musician, you might be underestimating the importance of
experience and talent on the engineering side. You also might not
realize just how much the room itself might be contributing to vocal
or acoustic instrument recording.

As a musician with an some kind of an ego, he might also be underestimating
the importance of having more musical skill than he currently has. I often
find that my ability as a recordist seems to improve by leaps and bounds
when some really-pretty-good musician(s) somehow get hornswaggeled into
stumbling in the general vicinity of some of my mics. And, its not me
getting excited about them and somehow doing a better job, because I often
have the micing and the levels all set before I find out what their skill
level actually is.

[yish313]

this is YISH313 again

Let me clear a few things up...

1. Im doing Music Composing Strickly In the Software or Digital Domain.
VSTs and Directx plugins(Hypersonic, Kontakt, Plugsound etc....) Cubase SX for sequencing(no need for musicians, at least not yet).

2. Im not recording vocals. Instrumentals (no need for room acoustics)

3. I havent Mixed yet. (No need for engineer.) just putting the various parts down

Now im not saying that i dont need to mix in a great room, record in a proffesionally built booth or even record live instruments. Like i said all that i know and can do.

aside all the acoustics and engineering, my work suffers from a somewhat subtle and minor quality deffeciency. that makes such a difference that my stuff comes off as cheap sounding. Im not looking for a good sounding setup, im aiming for an excellent sounding setup. some transparency and less masking before the mix(not totally eliminated, thats an engineering tc-nique)
just some clarity in my music.


Its hard to explain...

"yish313" wrote in message
...

A pro studio will have great sounding rooms and experienced engineers.
Home studios often don't have either.

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com

I keep hearing about rooms and engineers i know all about room acoutics
and engineering knowledge, however, what im hearing from amatuer work
and pro work is sonic transperancy that i cant seem to capture.

i dont mean to be rude, but you all tell me its the room and the
engineer or knowledge of engineering. Im listening to peoples work that
hasnt been touched for mixing, sweeting, eqing or anything, there hasent
been any vocals recorded and when i hear these songs its usually on a
home stereo system or car radio. Im talking about people who have no
idea what the hell a compresser does, but seem to have this sheen about
their wack compositions.

Okay, let's back up. When we talk about rooms, we're not talking about the
mixing room, but the room in which the recording is made, where the
performers are, and the microphones. A good-sounding studio makes the stuff
in it sound better.

The other thing involved, aside from some competence in placing microphones
in the right places, is the front-end gear. Pro studios don't use Behringer
preamps. Period. They don't use Behringer compressors. Period. And they use
microphones with names like Neumann. In short, they use transparent-sounding
microphones, preamps and compressors, which let through a hell of a lot more
clean sound. I've described the difference between high-quality pro
equipment and mediocre equipment as the difference between a
three-dimensional sound source in space and a point source in no space.

Go book some time in a studio (a downtown studio, not someone's basement)
and record a real instrument of some sort, through their pro-level gear.
Bring along your Behringer stuff and record through it, being careful to
match levels. (The studio engineer will help you do that.) You may be amazed
at the difference. Behringer stuff, as someone said in another thread, is
good value for money, but it don't sound like the big boys.

What good would the room do or engineering for that matter, if you
havent mixed, edit or recorded vocals. with that being said, you mean
to tell me that if i composed a song strickly from a ProTools setup
using nothing but VSTi instruments and samplers and i did the same song
in Cubase with a delta 44 setup using nothing but VSTi instruments and
no vocals or mix on either, that there would not be a difference.

Right, assuming you're rendering the virtual instruments directly to .wav
files rather than outputting them as analog and recording the analog through
the A/D converter. If you do the latter, yes, there will be a difference,
but one that's extremely subtle, one you'd be very hard-pressed to detect.
But if you render directly, then there'll be close to no difference,
assuming of course that you can do the exact same mix in the two software
programs. (The weasel words are in case they have slightly different mixing
algorithms.) Rendering directly, the hardware only matters for monitoring.
And in this case, not much.

Peace,
Paul

yish313 wrote:

SX for sequencing(no need for musicians, at least not yet).

2. Im not recording vocals. Instrumentals (no need for room
acoustics)

3. I havent Mixed yet. (No need for engineer.) just putting the
various parts down

Lack of lifeforms involved in the process = "lifeless"

aside all the acoustics and engineering, my work suffers from a
somewhat subtle and minor quality deffeciency. that makes such a
difference that my stuff comes off as cheap sounding.

Like the the software instruments being cheap imitations of
real instruments. You're not actually creating much new
in the form of music, just copying old data from several
files into new ones. There's not been any element of sound
until after it's played back.

Im not looking
for a good sounding setup, im aiming for an excellent sounding setup.
some transparency and less masking before the mix(not totally
eliminated, thats an engineering tc-nique)
just some clarity in my music.

Where did things go wrong ? Try incorporating some
elements you used before you had all the VST's etc.
Music should be played by players not a computer.

Its hard to explain...


--
yish313

Maybe you could hook up with Hassan ... ?

rd