In a recent thread "Getting In To Recording", the bulk of the
discussion centered on how hard it is to learn basic digital recording
and how long it will take to get decent results.

This is not my opinion, and I wonder about others.

My own experience isn't very helpful. I learned about 30 years ago. I
did have a mentor - an excellent professional engineer who guided me
through my first (and subsequent steps). My first recordings weren't
technical marvels, but were very satisfying musical experiences. The
mentor seems to be a very important part of learning recording (or
anything).

I have recently convinced a couple of my pals to jump in. Both bought
MOTU 828 firewire interfaces and use them with their laptops.

Terry has been writing songs and performing them solo. He uses one mic
to pick up his voice, guitar and kick/hat (yes, he plays them all at
once!). Other than the fact that I lent him a ****ty mic (ATM 4033),
this has worked out quite well. Now, I'm getting him to add a second
mic. He is virtually computer illiterate (only had his computer a year
or two, and only did email and web browsing before), but has figured
out the simple stuff on Digital Performer. This has been a great
experience for him - allowed him to put his ideas down, and has already
made a listenable recording (others have enjoyed it).

Jay is much better at his computer. I did a recording of his band a
couple of years ago. We transfered the files to his computer and he
started playing around with the mix. He's gotten quickly familiar with
the basics of DP and made some nice mixes. He has been making (only
for a few weeks) a bunch of 2 mic recordings which have sounded good.
He has just gotten a mackie board, and a bunch of mics and is starting
to figure out how all this works. He has a pretty good background in
working a basic mixer, and I think he'll do fine making the transition.

Neither of these guys has yet achieved "professional" multitrack
recordings, but they quickly got through the basics and are making
usable recordings. These songs would never have seen the light of day
if they had to pay for studio time. Both of these guys are experienced
professional musicians, so they have been able to quickly grasp what
the important issues were.

I think that the hardware has gotten to a point where normal mortals
can simply learn the system and fairly quickly do successful recording.
I'm sure that this is all facilitated by having somebody who knows
more around to help.

What has your experience been?

wrote in message
oups.com...

I think that the hardware has gotten to a point where normal mortals
can simply learn the system and fairly quickly do successful recording.
I'm sure that this is all facilitated by having somebody who knows
more around to help.

What has your experience been?

My experience as a radio broadcaster is that I get stacks and stacks of CDs
produced this way, and with very occasional exceptions they suck. The degree
of suckiness ranges from "Gee, that's not quite right but I can't put my
finger on why" to "Jeez, why is the guitar player in the other room?" Once
in a blue moon I get one that's professional-sounding.

Peace,
Paul

wrote in message
oups.com...
In a recent thread "Getting In To Recording", the bulk of the
discussion centered on how hard it is to learn basic digital recording
and how long it will take to get decent results.

I'm not a recording "professional" nor do I play one on TV but I believe
I've been messing around with it enough to offer some commentary.

To answer your question literally - buy a boom box, put in a tape, press
record, and voila', you've "learned to record".

Like anything else, learning to do it well is another proposition. Practice,
experimentation, familiarity with the gear, knowing how to get the results
you want. Someone who knows what they're doing will almost surely get better
results using a budget 4-track tape machine than a complete novice will
given the keys to a mega-dollar recording studio but no training. I would
guess that someone truly gifted and clever could take that boom box and get
surprising results.

Something I've found - it's amazingly easy to lose objectivity. Something
you thought was amazing when you first did it and put aside for a while
suddenly is full of glaring problems when you hear it with "fresh ears".

The difference between something sounding good and not sounding good can be
something very subtle. You have to train your ears/brain to be aware of
various issues. I don't know of any way to do this other than practice,
trial and error, having others listen and see what they think and being
familiar with what it sounds like when done by capable professionals (and
why it sounds like it does).

Another issue is what are you learning on? I've gotten pretty good at
squeezing good results out of minimal gear, recording myself, both midi and
audio. I've never sat at the board of a large studio, and wouldn't have a
clue how to use much of the gear. Surely learning high-end pro gear is a
whole different experience cognitively.

wrote:

In a recent thread "Getting In To Recording", the bulk of the
discussion centered on how hard it is to learn basic digital
recording and how long it will take to get decent results.

This is not my opinion, and I wonder about others.

I get that a lot. Every guy who ever learned to do audio without book
learnin' says it's unnecessary. However, behind most of those guys
you'll find someone else who does their problem solving.

Of course it's possible to become capable and even proficient without
technical training. My question is, and always has been, why on Earth
would you want to? It's more difficult to learn the hard way, it takes
longer, you develop a lot of bad habits (many of which will screw you
over and over down the road), and chances are you'll never be as good as
you could be with just some basic training. So why not get it?

My experience with self-trained audio practitioners is that they tend to
be lousy problem solvers. Now before two hundred people get their
panties in a bunch, obviously that's not ALWAYS the case. I've just
found it to be true much more often than not. I should also point out
that *I* fall into the "self trained" category, so I'm not pointing
fingers at anyone else that aren't also pointed at me.

I did eventually go to school, but by the time I got there I already had
a good understanding of the fundamentals. As a result, my instructor
pulled me out of school halfway through the first term and put me to
work as an assistant in the studio.

I only had that knowledge because I read books, spent as much time as I
could with working pros and learned from them, and generally tried to
learn more than "plug A goes in jack B." Obviously I did the same "plug
it in and see what happens" everyone else does, but I would also read up
on what I was doing in the hope of gaining a better understanding of
what was happening.

Despite all that, I'm still woefully lacking in knowledge of
electronics. I discovered this by going through learning a bunch of
other things that eventually led to the realization that going any
further would mean having to look under the hood. Had I spent more time
in school (or been directed to other books) I might have learned more
than "a resistor opposes power" and "a transistor is an amplifier." As
it is, if one of my tools releases its magic smoke, I'm at the mercy of
someone else to revive it.

I'm not saying you have to be able to build your own gear to record a
concert, but it speaks to a point about technical expertise. Recording
sound is an art, but it's also a technical undertaking. I've seen lots
of guys get cornered by not understanding fundamentals. They're fine as
long as everything works the way they expect it to, but if some variable
outside their experience changes, they don't have the skills or
understanding to resolve or work around it.

Like the guy whose master buss was lower on the right than the left,
even though he was feeding it a mono source. It never ocurred to him to
see *how much* lower. A quick glance showed the difference to be around
6dB. That was the key to the solution right there, and saved a bunch of
time that was being wasted on checking things that weren't relevant to
the problem.

Or the guy whose digital dubs played back perfectly in the studio, but
played too slow when he got them home.

Or the guy whose rig was working fine until he unplugged the limiters
from the master inserts and suddenly had no sound at all.

Or the relief sound guy at the stadium who decided that the announcer's
mic should be compressed, and couldn't understand why the level dropped
to almost inaudible when he patched the mic into the compressor input.

All those were show stoppers with simple solutions, but because the guys
in the chair didn't need no stinkin' teknikul know how no how, they
couldn't get out of it.

Sometimes it's not a show stopper, but still a product wrecker.

Like the guy whose mixes sounded okay except that the kick/bass combo
was all mucky. He'd tried boosting everything he could think of and it
wasn't getting any better. Since he hadn't worked with anyone else at
that point, it never occurred to him to pull all the bottom out of the
seventeen guitar tracks that were stomping all over his percussion.

Or the guy who discovered he needed just one more bit of voice-over to
cover an edit in a corporate he was producing, but the new piece sounded
so different than the existing stuff that it stood out like a sore
thumb.

I know one guy who asks me something about his productions every time I
see him. Everything from how to set a compressor to how to EQ a track
to where to put the mic... Then, while he plays people his new
masterpiece, he proudly announces, "...and I never had a day of
training!" He's wrong. He has SO had training. From *me*!

Maybe he would eventually get the same results without my help. The
question then is, how much longer would it have taken? How many sonic
horrors would he have generated in the meantime?

So, to sum it all up, learning the fundamentals is part of the gig. How
you learn them isn't all that important, though it's better if it's from
a person rather than a book because you can ask the person for
clarification of things you don't understand.

Without that knowledge it's hard to solve problems. It's also hard to
concentrate on being "artistic" when there are unresolved technical
issues. That's why I think it's better to be trained than to just start
pushing buttons at random to see what happens.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

I consider recording engineers, in general, to be the most technically
ignorant people of any "profession" I've ever met.

Anyone who want to be a recording engineer should have a thorough knowledge
of electronics, both theoretical and practical, and should be able to read
music, if not play at least one instrument. (By those criteria, I couldn't
be an engineer, as I don't read music.)

Short answer:

You never really learn "recording." You learn about things that apply
to recording, and the more you learn, the quicker you can get to a
solution to a problem or the more brances you can explore. And the more
you know about life, the bettter you know when everything's OK, when
you have a problem, and when you need to explore options.

Not every recording engineer needs to know how to align a tape deck but
he needs to recognize when the tape deck is min-aligned and know how to
deal with it.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I consider recording engineers, in general, to be the most technically
ignorant people of any "profession" I've ever met.

You just haven't met any (or many) recording engineers. They're few and
far between these days, but there are a lot of people who are making
recording, with varying degrees of success.

The ones with the strongest technical background aren't necessarily the
ones who make the biggest hits or even the best sounding recordings,
but they're the most fun to meet and talk with.

wrote in message
oups.com...

In a recent thread "Getting In To Recording", the bulk of the
discussion centered on how hard it is to learn basic digital recording
and how long it will take to get decent results.

This is not my opinion, and I wonder about others.

I would say that the inclusion of the word "digital" is gratuitous or even
misleading.

Learning how to make a recording is not a slam dunk. Digital arguably makes
it easier.

My own experience isn't very helpful. I learned about 30 years ago. I
did have a mentor - an excellent professional engineer who guided me
through my first (and subsequent steps). My first recordings weren't
technical marvels, but were very satisfying musical experiences. The
mentor seems to be a very important part of learning recording (or
anything).

I wish I had a mentor - I've always had to learn on my own.

I think that the hardware has gotten to a point where normal mortals
can simply learn the system and fairly quickly do successful recording.

I agree that digital has made things easier, but recording is more about
mixing and mics and musicians and rooms than recorders. All digital really
does is improve price/performance and eliminate some messy aspects of
running a recorder and editing.

I'm sure that this is all facilitated by having somebody who knows
more around to help.

A this point I could probably help someone get started but I'm spending 10,
20, 30 hours a week just keeping the wheels on.

What kind of radio station do you work for? It's unrealistic to
compare simple home recording with the most expensive commercial
releases. I don't have much respect for the big record labels, but
they do, if nothing else, consistantly produce good sounding recordings
(even if the music often sucks).

College radio, on the other hand, does seem to have an enormous amount
of home recording (and of course, also has a lot of music that sucks).

I certainly don't disagree that good education is a shortcut to getting
to be a professional audio engineer (although the excellent engineers I
know didn't go this route). But that's not what I was asking about.

There are a lot of musicians out there who just want to have their
music heard. They're not looking to devote their lives to recording,
they want to write and play music. I have been hearing quite a bit of
reasonably well recorded music from my musician friends. It does seem
to me that the new equipment is making that easier for debutants.

Back when I started recording, professional quality equipment was
prohibitively expensive and very complex (and I came in at the
beginning of the home studio craze). Now one can purchase the basic
euipment for very little.

I believe that these developments have allowed many musicians to enter
the recording field and some of them have figured out how to do good
simple recording.

I think the problem with my opening question is that nobody agrees on
what "good recording" is. I have no problem including the simple, lo
tech, recordings I hear on college radio. I don't need lush
orchestration and expensive recording to enjoy a piece of music. In
fact, this is usually something that makes me stop listening.

It's clear (in a number of different threads on similar topics) that
this group doesn't agree with me. I suppose asking "recording
professionals" to endorse the "do it yourself" method is unlikely to be
greated with much enthusiasm. I wonder if I would get the same
response from musician's newsgroups?

wrote:

I suppose asking "recording professionals" to endorse the "do it
yourself" method is unlikely to be greated with much enthusiasm.


Likely true, but perhaps not for the reason you think.

Some people perceive the cool response as protectionism... suggesting
that recording pros see they're livelihood threatened by home
recordists. That's definitely not the issue in my case.

It has more to do with being an educated listener. Our ear/brains are
trained to listen for and identify flaws in an audio chain. When we
hear amateur recordings, we hear the flaws and are put off.

I think your friends are probably getting better results than most home
recordists, and I suspect it's probably due to constructive input from
you and perhaps others like you. For most, I really think the old adage
applies: "You can buy a hammer and saw, but it won't make you a
carpenter."

Then again, if you're happy with listening to the audio equivalent of
wobbly, poorly finished spice racks, then maybe it's just a case of
differing expectations.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

wrote in message
oups.com...
What kind of radio station do you work for? It's unrealistic to
compare simple home recording with the most expensive commercial
releases. I don't have much respect for the big record labels, but
they do, if nothing else, consistantly produce good sounding recordings
(even if the music often sucks).

Actually I think the big labels' records suck too, thanks to
hyper-compression, but that's a different issue. I do a folkl show, which
means I rely almost entirely on small labels & artists' self-published
recordings. Some of these are recorded in studios, and mostly sound good.
Many are self-recorded, and mostly sound bad.

Peace,
Paul

kenwinokur wrote:

There are a lot of musicians out there who just want to have their
music heard. They're not looking to devote their lives to recording,
they want to write and play music. I have been hearing quite a bit of
reasonably well recorded music from my musician friends. It does seem
to me that the new equipment is making that easier for debutants.

I look back to the days of a well cal'd Revox and a pair of mics, and
bingo, I'm recording. It all sounded as good or as bad as I played it,
and I don't regeret that, because the solution for bad sounding music
was to play it so it sounds good. A whole lot of digitalizing goes on
trying to get around that reality. That time might be better spent
practicing music.

As for asking pros about DIY, that's how I got started. The story is in
the Google archives, from several years ago.

--
ha

Lines: 61
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: ldjgbllpbapjglppdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboam apnkmebpnaapielbkhkhiapfhgbgjdchhjdjhnnjoakgbjhcja dbapeoiocnnhofbdipdgjacincdmkhnchchjgdpfjccchbfbbg dbemghfool
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:21:13 EST
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:21:13 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1221061


THomas wrote:
It seems to me that a lot of people get hung up in the nuts and
bolts of recording instead of paying attention to what makes a
great recording - An excellent song, performed in a great space, by
great musicians, using the best recording techniques for the
situation. Getting it on tape is the easy part. Getting it on tape
correctly involves proper microphone selection, placement, gain
structure,etc. None of these things have anything to do with
digital recording, only recording in general.

I think that's one reason we see expectations and reality
being so different. WHen we go watch the pros work we see
that editing is simpler for many with the mouse than with a
razor blade. WE figure we're ready to go because we can
edit and "fix" more easier. HOwever I don't care if you're
recording a voice over, a meeting, a jazz band or birdcalls.
Capturing the audio you want properly so as to minimize the
work you have to do later is something you learn from
watching others do it as well as good old trial and error.

For the new guy starting out it's changed. IN days of old
(pre ubiquitous internet) you got interested and hung around
others doing this and learned from them. Otherwise you
floundered and discovered things by trial and error.

I think too many people get hung up on the technology. said
technology gives the newbie the false expectation of being
able to run before mastering walking. INstead of sitting
down and working out an arrangement for a song until it
sounds polished and then going to record we work
differently.

AT one time even if you were trying to capture a tape to
show a bar owner on the cheap you worked out your songs and
if nothing else found an old guy with some kind of recorder,
set up wherever you could, hung some microphones around and
the guy hit record. NOw you can sit in your den or bedroom
and cut paste and tweak endlessly.

I lay a lot of the blame on the use of a computer as the
chosen recording medium. WHen you go to install the
software they're sure to tell you about all the cool things
their product can do. wIth a tape machine however you put
on a tape, hooked up some microphones and captured some
sound. Along the way hopefully you learned a few things
which then got installed in your wetware which taught you
how to capture the wanted sounds better.
sEe MIke Rivers' example of the punch-in elsewhere this
thread.


Richard WEbb,
Electric SPider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

Lines: 83
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: ldjgbllpbapjglppdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboam apnkmebpnaapiejgdidmoiaignhcklchhjdjhnnjoakgbjhcja dbapeoiocnnhofbdipdgjacincdmnkjopgbdklnikbhjhbfbbg dbemghfool
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:21:16 EST
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:21:16 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1221060


Mike RIvers wrote:
Sometimes, for example with a compressor, they might include a
tutorial on what compression is, and some suggeested settings as
starting points. Howerver, you can't expect them to tell you "how
to record" in a general sense.
THe one thing they can't tell you in their guide is whether
you should be using the compressor for that application in
the first place.

This is something that has traditinally been learned by hanging out
and doing. Musicians go into the studio and record, and those who
are interested in the process spend some time hanging out on the
other side of the glass and ask questions. But today there's a
great resistance toward paying for this sort of education by
booking time in a studio and actually working. So what do you do
when you close yourself off from that route? You ask questions on
forums, you read a couple of books, and then you bumble through a
few jobs until you start catchin on - or not.
snippage

That's fine, but you can't expect to do research, learn how to
"record," and on your first time out, get the results you're lookng
for. The tendency is to want to start out knowing "how can I get
professional results?" and they expect that if they learn the best
components to buy and how to plug them together so that you can put
sound in one end and get it out the other, it will be as
professional as can be. And then they wonder why it isn't.
sEe my other post about getting hung up on advanced
techniques of polishing captured audio before we learn how
to capture good audio. BUying all these components of your
system and hooking them up then leads to look at what you
can do with our great cool software.
COmpare that with yesteryear when you put a tape on the
recorder, placed microphones to capture what you wanted to
capture (hopefully) and hit record. You'd get out the razor
blade and learn to splice and edit tapes later. oUr
approach to the tools is different because of how they're
presented, especially for newbies.

snippage
All true. But the easiest thing to obtain is better gear, so that's
what they go for. You can build or rent a great recording space,
but a great microphone costs less. You can hire a great singer or
learn to become one yourself, but editing and autotune costs less.
You can hire a good engineer, but it's cheaper to do it yourself
and learn as you go along. It's all possible, but during the
several years you're learning, your software goes out of date so
you buy a different package and you're back down the learning curve
again. Or your computer goes out of date so you buy a new one and
you're back to solving the click-and-pop problems again. You just
never really catch up if you don't have the fundamentals down pat
and can get back in business. And you never really learn the
fundamentals if you keep changing your tools.
Another valid point to the better old days. wHen you
changed your tools then you upgraded because you knew the
value of the upgrade. YOu found better working space or
upgraded from that cassette multi-track recorder to narrow
format reel or bought a better console, a better mic etc.
WHen you did upgrade you knew why you were upgrading and the
techniques you'd learned previously were still put to use.

YOu didn't have to spend the time making sure that your
drivers were installed correctly and that the latest virus
didn't come crawling out of your net connection and trash
your data. then there was the user interface with the
software. The user interface when you upgraded major
components of your system was still the same---arm the
track, press record. Now a new computer often necessitates
an update of software because the old hardware doesn't work,
the os is different, yada yada ad nauseam.




Richard WEbb,
Electric SPider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel when it's not.

I would agree that you can "record" on just about anything. You will
have certain members the old guard here with the most haughty replies
telling you access the archives and about how they used to record with
two tin cans, some string, and a wax cylinder. Ironic that they take
the time to answer at all...

But I would stear towards what is most prevalent in the marketplace,
and that would be
one of the more popular DAW programs such as pro tools le or cakewalk.
I personally use pro tools le. It is the most synchronous "everyman"
program to the industry standard now which is pro tools hd.

Or maybe a stand-alone muti track digital recorder for under $1000 if
you are looking for some entry level stuff. The DAW programs have the
advantage of great editing capability, but... maybe it is more
important just to get your ideas down on a stand alone recorder, you
can always dump it to a computer later.

Looks at the musicians friend web site and price some equipment.

I would emphasise the basics in recording

1)keep the tempo rock solid. one little slide of the tempo or a
misplaced beat can ruin a good song. Any fluctuation in tempo should be
very intentional and all the parts have to agree with that... such as
slowing down at the end of a song

2) keep everything in tune, especially vocals. if you can't sing very
well find someone who can, it is the most upfront thing that can ruin a
song in a heartbeat.

And the thing that 90% of people miss, is learning as much as you can
about music theory, the music is the "thing" after all.

Good Luck

wrote in message
oups.com...
I would agree that you can "record" on just about anything. You will
have certain members the old guard here with the most haughty replies
telling you access the archives and about how they used to record with
two tin cans, some string, and a wax cylinder. Ironic that they take
the time to answer at all...


.... and even more ironic that their "haughty" replies are anticipated with
such a keen interest. So much so, I'd say, that a bunch of them have been
keeping this newsgroup
alive for years now.



But I would stear towards what is most prevalent in the marketplace,
and that would be
one of the more popular DAW programs such as pro tools le or cakewalk.
I personally use pro tools le. It is the most synchronous "everyman"
program to the industry standard now which is pro tools hd.


Why waste time here, then? Just migrate to a Digi forum, where you're
certain to find all you'll ever need to know about recording.



I would emphasise the basics in recording

1)keep the tempo rock solid. one little slide of the tempo or a
misplaced beat can ruin a good song. Any fluctuation in tempo should be
very intentional and all the parts have to agree with that... such as
slowing down at the end of a song


Not that the tempo/timing is unimportant, but can you name a good song that
was ruined by a misplaced beat?



2) keep everything in tune, especially vocals. if you can't sing very
well find someone who can, it is the most upfront thing that can ruin a
song in a heartbeat.


Not that keeping everything in tune is unimportant, but the list of great
songs and hits with less than perfect vocals would go forever. Perfection
can be boring, imperfection can be charming, it's all relative.



And the thing that 90% of people miss, is learning as much as you can
about music theory, the music is the "thing" after all.


There's something in musicality too.

Predrag

I would have to say that for me the learning curve was fairly steep
primarily because manufacturers don't do a good job with documentation
and I got into digital recording just before it was starting to become
popular. There wasn't a lot of information out there in groups and I
pretty much had to figure out things on my own. That's pretty much my
style of learning things, though. I get interested in something and
I'll do research on my own and experiment on my own until I get the
results I'm looking for. If someone were starting today and no prior
knowledge of recording, let alone digital recording, I think I can
honestly say that there isn't anything that would provide them with any
problems. The software has gotten idiot-proof, the hardware, including
computers, is incredibly reliable and the quality of the effects is
non-pariel. It seems to me that a lot of people get hung up in the nuts
and bolts of recording instead of paying attention to what makes a
great recording - An excellent song, performed in a great space, by
great musicians, using the best recording techniques for the situation.
Getting it on tape is the easy part. Getting it on tape correctly
involves proper microphone selection, placement, gain structure,etc.
None of these things have anything to do with digital recording, only
recording in general.

Thomas
www.yourhomestudio.com

Free Home Studio Newsletter -

YourHomeStudioDotCom wrote:
I would have to say that for me the learning curve was fairly steep
primarily because manufacturers don't do a good job with documentation

You can expect (and sometimes you'd be disappointed) that an equipment
manufacturer would explain how to use his equipment to do things that
you already know how to do with something else. Sometimes, for example
with a compressor, they might include a tutorial on what compression
is, and some suggeested settings as starting points. Howerver, you
can't expect them to tell you "how to record" in a general sense.

This is something that has traditinally been learned by hanging out and
doing. Musicians go into the studio and record, and those who are
interested in the process spend some time hanging out on the other side
of the glass and ask questions. But today there's a great resistance
toward paying for this sort of education by booking time in a studio
and actually working. So what do you do when you close yourself off
from that route? You ask questions on forums, you read a couple of
books, and then you bumble through a few jobs until you start catchin
on - or not.

I get interested in something and
I'll do research on my own and experiment on my own until I get the
results I'm looking for.

That's fine, but you can't expect to do research, learn how to
"record," and on your first time out, get the results you're lookng
for. The tendency is to want to start out knowing "how can I get
professional results?" and they expect that if they learn the best
components to buy and how to plug them together so that you can put
sound in one end and get it out the other, it will be as professional
as can be. And then they wonder why it isn't.

If someone were starting today and no prior
knowledge of recording, let alone digital recording, I think I can
honestly say that there isn't anything that would provide them with any
problems.

Oh, I can. They don't know where to start.

The software has gotten idiot-proof, the hardware, including
computers, is incredibly reliable and the quality of the effects is
non-pariel.

In that case, how come we see so many people asking about clicks and
pops, and how do they do something that we've never imagined anyone
wanting to do, as a solution to a problem that has a much better and
simpler solution? Software is far from idiot-proof. Sure, you don't
have to worry about erasing a good take as you did with tape, but it
may be difficult to figure out how to perform a punch-in, or to even
know that this is what you want to do. Some people wold just record a
new track and then try to figure out how to edit to fix what they could
have punched. Indeed this is a legitmate approach sometimes, and it's
always the safest way to do the job, but it's not always the most
efficient, and you don't know whether you can move on or have to do it
again until you actually fix what you're trying to fix. Stuff like that
makes me think that the software is far from idiot-proof - because it
doesn't guide the idiot away from doing idiotic things. Nor would I
expect it to do so.

It seems to me that a lot of people get hung up in the nuts
and bolts of recording instead of paying attention to what makes a
great recording - An excellent song, performed in a great space, by
great musicians, using the best recording techniques for the situation.

All true. But the easiest thing to obtain is better gear, so that's
what they go for. You can build or rent a great recording space, but a
great microphone costs less. You can hire a great singer or learn to
become one yourself, but editing and autotune costs less. You can hire
a good engineer, but it's cheaper to do it yourself and learn as you go
along. It's all possible, but during the several years you're learning,
your software goes out of date so you buy a different package and
you're back down the learning curve again. Or your computer goes out of
date so you buy a new one and you're back to solving the click-and-pop
problems again. You just never really catch up if you don't have the
fundamentals down pat and can get back in business. And you never
really learn the fundamentals if you keep changing your tools.

People who are good with computers can usually get over the computer
issues. But that doesn't make them better songwriters or singers or
microphone choosers or cable builders or system engineers.

In article .com,
wrote:

In a recent thread "Getting In To Recording", the bulk of the
discussion centered on how hard it is to learn basic digital recording
and how long it will take to get decent results.

[snip]

What has your experience been?


Actually, my experience has been loads of fun. I've been at it over 30 years
but I never worked in a commercial recording studio. I built my own home studio
back when analog 8-tracks were just becoming affordable. I learned to play
guitar and write songs. I studied computer programming and electronics and
built a lot of my studio gear. I read every text, magazine and popular press
book there was on the subject. It took decades, but the experience has left me
at least a competent recordist and I still love doing it. Ultimately, it became
my (second) career.

There's no quick way to master something like recording. You just have to do it
and do it until you have encountered enough problems and solutions to be
confident you can solve any problem that arises, from software to hardware to
psychology to music theory. It's all relevant and all part of the pursuit. If
you really love it, it will happen.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Ironic that they take
the time to answer at all...

and even more ironic that their "haughty" replies are anticipated with
such a keen interest. So much so, I'd say, that a bunch of them have
been
keeping this newsgroup live for years now.

Okay I will grant you that except when Hank is on the rag. And even
he's very informative .... unlike your blithering idiocy....


I personally use pro tools le. It is the most synchronous "everyman"
program to the industry standard now which is pro tools hd.

Why waste time here, then? Just migrate to a Digi forum, where you're
certain to find all you'll ever need to know about recording.

I mentioned more than one DAW program, you dip****. Yes that's where I
spend a lot of time... the Digi forum. Are you trying to sell your 4
track to this novice or something?

I would emphasise the basics in recording

1)keep the tempo rock solid. one little slide of the tempo or a
misplaced beat can ruin a good song.

Not that the tempo/timing is unimportant, but can you name a good song that was ruined by a misplaced beat?

That's an oxymoron isn't it moron? Can you name one good song with a
screwed up rythym track? Misbeats and screwed up tempos must be your
forte if you are so defensive about "sound" advice.


2) keep everything in tune, especially vocals. if you can't sing very
well find someone who can, it is the most upfront thing that can ruin a
song in a heartbeat.

Not that keeping everything in tune is unimportant, but the list of great
songs and hits with less than perfect vocals would go forever.
Perfection
can be boring, imperfection can be charming, it's all relative.

Okay, your name must be Robert Zimmerman right? Here I am giving some
basic fundamental advice, it doesn't say much for your technique if you
are so blase about keeping **** in tune.

And the thing that 90% of people miss, is learning as much as you can
about music theory, the music is the "thing" after all.

There's something in musicality too.
Predrag

Such wisidom, why even bother to learn a simple C scale?
There's a yodel fest waiting for you somewhere, why don't you haul your
cassette portastudio out there?

wrote:

(insults snipped)

Are you done now? If the company of people who actually know a thing or
five thousand about audio bothers you so much, you're under absolutely
no obligation to stay.

If you're going to stay, behave.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

wrote:

Such wisidom, why even bother to learn a simple C scale?
There's a yodel fest waiting for you somewhere, why don't you haul your
cassette portastudio out there?

Good yodeling is difficult and amazing, musically. I'd want better than
cassette to capture it. g

--
ha

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:05:52 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

wrote:

Such wisidom, why even bother to learn a simple C scale?
There's a yodel fest waiting for you somewhere, why don't you haul your
cassette portastudio out there?

Good yodeling is difficult and amazing, musically. I'd want better than
cassette to capture it. g

Can it go on that CD with Pan Pipes, Bagpipes and Banjo please?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

ha:"Good yodeling is difficult and amazing, musically. I'd want better
than
cassette to capture it. "g

Go for it!

Shultz: "Are you done now? If the company of people who actually know
a thing or
five thousand about audio bothers you so much, you're under absolutely
no obligation to stay.
If you're going to stay, behave"

Gee okay Mom, I get the picture it is okay to be insulted, but not
okay to put up a defense. Schultz, I feel no obligation to stay, and
certainly no pressure to leave.
I will pursue my First Amendment rights where I feel like.
If this is a moderated group then boot me if you damn well want to.
Differing points of view often are not tolerated by fascist after all.
Freedom of the press after all..., belongs to the guy that owns it!
(Hence; Fox news)

I will stick by my points of keeping things in tune and on beat, as
recording advice 101, thank you.

wrote in message
oups.com...
ha:"Good yodeling is difficult and amazing, musically. I'd want better
than
cassette to capture it. "g

Go for it!

Shultz: "Are you done now? If the company of people who actually know
a thing or
five thousand about audio bothers you so much, you're under absolutely
no obligation to stay.
If you're going to stay, behave"

Gee okay Mom, I get the picture it is okay to be insulted, but not
okay to put up a defense.


You felt insulted? No problem, just re-read my post, quote the insults I
addressed to you and I'll gladly apologize, no questions asked. Then we'll
do the same with your posts, you'll apologize to everybody you've insulted
and we'll continue as a happy family. OK?



Schultz, I feel no obligation to stay, and
certainly no pressure to leave.
I will pursue my First Amendment rights where I feel like.
If this is a moderated group then boot me if you damn well want to.
Differing points of view often are not tolerated by fascist after all.
Freedom of the press after all..., belongs to the guy that owns it!
(Hence; Fox news)



Dropping big words is not as bad as dropping insults, but it does little to
prove one's point.



I will stick by my points of keeping things in tune and on beat, as
recording advice 101, thank you.


That is not a problem.

Predrag

Sometimes you wish you could stop a thread you started...

Anyway, here's some final thoughts - Recording has become part of the
language of musicians. Like writen notation. Most professionals have
had to learn a good deal about recording, and quite a few of them have
learned how to control the process.

I think the current generation of simple interfaces, coupled with any
of the leading software recording programs, and few of the best
inexpensive mics, has made good recording remarkably easily and cheap.
It has also made many of us Musicians, "Engineers".

I think that an increasing amount of the music we listen to over
commercial channels (radio, TV, satelite, internet - whatever) is being
made in simple (or elaborate) home studios. The amount will increase
exponentially in the years to come.

Ken Winokur
alloyorchestra.com

wrote:

Gee okay Mom, I get the picture it is okay to be insulted, but not
okay to put up a defense.

Relax. You weren't insulted. The point was that mechanical perfection
ain't always all that, and that lots of good recordings get made with
sub-perfect tempo and pitch because the passion and soul of the
performance outweigh the technical flaws. How is that insulting you?

Besides, the counter-comments had a point. Yours were just personal
attacks. There's nothing to be gained from that.

I've recently had ocassion to visit another pro audio group where this
kind of stuff just doesn't happen. It was nice. Newbies ask questions
politely and actually get the benefit of answers from working pros.
Here, many of the experts have quit posting because they don't want to
bother with childish exchanges. Exercising your "free speech" in a way
that ****es off the people with expertise and experience isn't exactly
productive.

For my part, since I benefit from reading observations from skilled
pros, it's in my best interest to ask those who pee in the pool to
please stop. I'm not your mom. I'm the guy sitting behind you in the
theatre who doesn't want to miss important plot elements when you
heckle, that's all.



I will pursue my First Amendment rights where I feel like.

Save your flag-waving for American forums. This is an international
group. Where you post from is irrelevant and of no interest to anyone
else.

I respect your right to hold an opinion. What I object to is your tone.
Please don't spray **** just because someone else has a different
opinion. You can disagree without being an asshole.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"Ken Winokur" wrote in message
ups.com...


I think that an increasing amount of the music we listen to over
commercial channels (radio, TV, satelite, internet - whatever) is being
made in simple (or elaborate) home studios. The amount will increase
exponentially in the years to come.


Along with overall level of sophistication and complexity of the home
setups, if I may add.

Predrag

Predrag: "and even more ironic that their "haughty" replies are
anticipated with such a keen interest.

Emin9th: That's not sarcastic is it?

EMIN9TH: " But I would stear towards what is most prevalent in the
marketplace, and that would be one of the more popular DAW programs
such as pro tools le or cakewalk."

Predrag: Why waste time here, then? Just migrate to a Digi forum, where
you're certain to find all you'll ever need to know about recording.
....

Emin9th: That wasn't a haughty and smug right? Christ. All I'll "ever
need to know about recording..."

Schlutz:I've recently had ocassion to visit another pro audio group
where this kind of stuff just doesn't happen.

Emin9th: In the great advice of Predrag, Why waste your time here then?

Schultz:Newbies ask questions politely and actually get the benefit of
answers from working pros

Emin9th: The rec.pro audio stands for production, not professional.
I guess you didn't realize that! Shultz, You are seriously mislead if
you think more than about 10% of the people that post here don't have a
day job. If you don't then good for you, but I'm not about to kiss
your ass, or anyone here with sarcastic replies.

If a newbie wants to post, and that is clear even in the title, what I
object to is the notion that someone new can not ask a basic question
without getting a measure of arrogance in the reply. I look at it as bullying, and yes it does **** me off.

I thought Ken had put this to thread bed, but if you want to keep
picking at it, so be it.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Predrag: "and even more ironic that their "haughty" replies are
anticipated with such a keen interest.

Emin9th: That's not sarcastic is it?


I apologize for insulting you by paraphrasing your own words.



EMIN9TH: " But I would stear towards what is most prevalent in the
marketplace, and that would be one of the more popular DAW programs
such as pro tools le or cakewalk."

Predrag: Why waste time here, then? Just migrate to a Digi forum, where
you're certain to find all you'll ever need to know about recording.
...

Emin9th: That wasn't a haughty and smug right? Christ. All I'll "ever
need to know about recording..."


I apologize for saying: "All you'll ever need to know about recording."




Schlutz:I've recently had ocassion to visit another pro audio group
where this kind of stuff just doesn't happen.

Emin9th: In the great advice of Predrag, Why waste your time here then?


No need to worry because Lorin is not wasting his or anybody else's time
here.

By the way, if I didn't know how terribly sensitive you are, I would have
found this completely uncalled remark of yours quite sarcastic.



Schultz:Newbies ask questions politely and actually get the benefit of
answers from working pros

Emin9th: The rec.pro audio stands for production, not professional.
I guess you didn't realize that! Shultz, You are seriously mislead if
you think more than about 10% of the people that post here don't have a
day job. If you don't then good for you, but I'm not about to kiss
your ass, or anyone here with sarcastic replies.


I see, because sarcasm is your exclusive right.



If a newbie wants to post, and that is clear even in the title, what I
object to is the notion that someone new can not ask a basic question
without getting a measure of arrogance in the reply. I look at it as
bullying, and yes it does **** me off.

I thought Ken had put this to thread bed, but if you want to keep
picking at it, so be it.


I thought you were going to reciprocate and apologize to everybody you've
insulted with less subtle means than just sarcasm. Never mind.

By the way, Ken is not the moderator here. This group is not moderated.
That's why the signal to noise ratio is not always exemplary. But the
sources of noise never stay long.

Predrag

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

I apologize for insulting you by paraphrasing your own words.

I apologize for saying: "All you'll ever need to know about recording."


Predrag

Thank you, Predrag, your apology is accepted.
Emin9th

wrote:

I'm not about to kiss your ass, or anyone here with
sarcastic replies.



You know, whoever you are, there's a world of difference between
"kissing ass" and just not being an asshole. Find some middle ground
where you're neither kissing ass nor being an asshole.

I'm perfectly aware of what the rec.audio.pro stands for. I did not,
nor have I ever, suggested that non-pros are unwelcome. I said that
having experts around is good for everyone, but we frequently lose them
because they can't be bothered to deal with ****heads.

You seem to be okay with the idea that 90% of the participants have only
hobbyist expertise. Personally, I like the idea of having people with
both training and day-in-day-out experience around. That's why I
suggest simply keeping things half-way civil. No one has to kiss
anyone's ass, just don't incessantly kick at them just for fun either.

This *used* to be a forum where working audio pros could get together to
share working tips. Newbies came around to get expert advice. If we
drive away all the experts, who's gonna answer the newbie's questions?

You may consider the tone of the replies beneath your delicate
sensibilities, but you may want to consider how many times some of these
questions have been answered, and just how lazy some of the people
asking really are too.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Schultz: " I said that having experts around is good for everyone, but
we frequently lose them because they can't be bothered to deal with
****heads."

Emin9th: Then why bother? Take off your paper hat. Just skip the
posts that seek the easy advice, and go right to the ones discussing
the exotic esotera that so intrigues you!
Is it that hard to figure out?

Schultz: "You may consider the tone of the replies beneath your
delicate
sensibilities...,

Emin9th: Delicate sensibilities? No, but when I'm blown off and
disregarded I will push back. Listen, I chose to reply to the basic
question of "getting into recording", with sincerity and to the basic
points 1) keep things in beat (which many novices don't..even playing
along with drum machines) and 2) keep things in tune (which many
novices don't, especially with vocals). Why anyone would want to argue
with that? And then tell me I should go to another board? It provoked a
nasty response which you took exception to, but maybe you are the
delicate flower in that you can dish it out but not take it. Predrag
let it go, why can't you do the same? I will have the last word here.

Shultz: "but you may want to consider how many times some of these
questions have been answered, and just how lazy some of the people
asking really are too."

Emin9th: You know I will let your own words speak for how superior you
feel.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Schultz: " I said that having experts around is good for everyone, but
we frequently lose them because they can't be bothered to deal with
****heads."

Emin9th: Then why bother? Take off your paper hat. Just skip the
posts that seek the easy advice, and go right to the ones discussing
the exotic esotera that so intrigues you!
Is it that hard to figure out?

Schultz: "You may consider the tone of the replies beneath your
delicate
sensibilities...,

Emin9th: Delicate sensibilities? No, but when I'm blown off and
disregarded I will push back. Listen, I chose to reply to the basic
question of "getting into recording",


Starting with the sweeping insult to regular members here.



with sincerity and to the basic
points 1) keep things in beat (which many novices don't..even playing
along with drum machines) and 2) keep things in tune (which many
novices don't, especially with vocals). Why anyone would want to argue
with that?


Why not if there's a point? Just because differing opinions annoy you?



And then tell me I should go to another board?



If you can't restrain yourself from derrogatory remarks about the
contributions by the regular members here, then yes, it's a valid
suggestion.



It provoked a
nasty response which you took exception to, but maybe you are the
delicate flower in that you can dish it out but not take it. Predrag
let it go, why can't you do the same? I will have the last word here.


You'll behave yourself or slam the window and leave, sooner or later, just
like so many trolls before you.



Shultz: "but you may want to consider how many times some of these
questions have been answered, and just how lazy some of the people
asking really are too."

Emin9th: You know I will let your own words speak for how superior you
feel.


If one suffers from inferiority complex, everybody else seems superior.

Predrag

Predrag:"Why not if there's a point? Just because differing opinions
annoy you?"

Emin9th: you obviously can't decern between fact and opinion if you
believe recording music out of tempo and out of tune is acceptable
practice. But knock yourself out drag.

Predrag:"You'll behave yourself or slam the window and leave, sooner or
later, just
like so many trolls before you."

Emin9th: Behave myself, Okay, thanks Mom. Go back to recording the
sound of your own out of tune and deluded voice in the wind. Are you
taking back your apology to me?
You will not have the last word. Troll? that is the kettle calling the
pot black.



If one suffers from inferiority complex, everybody else seems superior.


Predrag

"I'm here to have an argument."
"No you're not."
"Yes I am!"

As was said in another thread recently: Pfui.

wrote:

1) keep things in beat (which many novices don't..even playing
along with drum machines) and 2) keep things in tune (which many
novices don't, especially with vocals). Why anyone would want to argue
with that?

Slavish devotion to a metronomic pusle insteadof to the flow of a song
can make the difference between something inspiring and just another
well-tamed pop song.

In tune is always good, but there are many shades of "in tune".

Your points are good, but overlook a vast catalog of thrilling hits that
violate either/both of those rules

--
ha