record myself or go to a demo studio

[wescattle]

after trying to record my entire band with my tascam dp-01fx i realized that i should maybe leave it to the pros. We used the mixer outs on my behringer mixer to the stereo INs on the dp-01fx. When i went to listen to to the tracks there was nothing there, on one song it was just distortiotn. There is a decent recording studio about 25 minutes from my house and looks suitable for a 4 song demo. Its 40$ an hour and i figured for 4 songs we could maybe end up recording a nice demo in about 3 hours. Its not a serious demo, just one for getting gigs.
Ive been told that 2 to 3 hours is def not enough time and that i would need 25 to 30 hours. That seems ridicoulous. So i was just wondering, should i try to get my dp-01fx system up and running (behringer mixer into the dp-01) or should i just go pro for the extra cash.

here is the site

http://www.briansstudio.com



info on my band....

we are a 3 peice 2 guitars, vocals and drummer

[loudboy]

1. It would take 2 hours just to set up. That would leave 1 hour for tracking and mixing. The fastest I've done an acceptable club demo is around 10 hours, and that was working fast with a very good band.

2. $40/hr. for that studio is steep. For that price you should be able to get a nice mid-level room, w/real mics and outboard.

3. You've got nothing to lose by trying it yourself. If it sucks, you've lost nothing but an eveming or two of rehearsal. Better yet, get someone to videotape you at a gig or rehearsal and make a DVD of it - then the clubowners will get to see what the band looks like as well, and the sound quality won't be as much of an issue.

Loudboy

[brad347]

I'd pass on that studio. It's project level gear at best and the rooms look like they have lots of parallel surfaces with minimal acoustic treatment =BAD.

It looks like someone who did live sound and used their leftover gear for a project studio. Wouldn't pay $40/hr for it.

Practice with your own gear on your own and learn it. You will never regret it.

[tedm]

If your recorder isn't working, try a cassette deck, line in on a pc soundcard, VHS HiFi, borrrow or rent an ADAT for cheap. Learn to use your stuff.

after trying to record my entire band with my tascam dp-01fx i realized that i should maybe leave it to the pros. We used the mixer outs on my behringer mixer to the stereo INs on the dp-01fx. When i went to listen to to the tracks there was nothing there, on one song it was just distortiotn. There is a decent recording studio about 25 minutes from my house and looks suitable for a 4 song demo. Its 40$ an hour and i figured for 4 songs we could maybe end up recording a nice demo in about 3 hours. Its not a serious demo, just one for getting gigs.
Ive been told that 2 to 3 hours is def not enough time and that i would need 25 to 30 hours. That seems ridicoulous. So i was just wondering, should i try to get my dp-01fx system up and running (behringer mixer into the dp-01) or should i just go pro for the extra cash.

here is the site

http://www.briansstudio.com



info on my band....

we are a 3 peice 2 guitars, vocals and drummer

[Tone_Terrific]

This ii not expert opinion here, but there is a lot to be said in favor of just walking in and letting someone else have the hassle of capturing the band sound.

A 4 song demo in 3 hours seems a bit or two optimitistic, so, ask the studio for an estimate and decide on what process you want to use i.e. live, overdubs, etc., and how much mixing/mastering time you are willing to pay for.

[therigaletto]

going to have to agree and say pass on that studio. If you are going to go the studio demo route though, the best possible way to get your money's worth is to have all the songs structure and all your parts nailed so you dont have to "waste tape"...I know everythings digital now, but I still like the term :)

[Bassomatic]

Learn to use your stuff.

As Matte is fond of saying, that's a process, not an event.

Have you ever tried tracking a full band, live, with prosumer gear?

[hw2nw]

going to have to agree and say pass on that studio. If you are going to go the studio demo route though, the best possible way to get your money's worth is to have all the songs structure and all your parts nailed so you dont have to "waste tape"...I know everythings digital now, but I still like the term :)


+1. If you do go the studio route, know 3-4 songs down cold so there's no questions, everything tracks quickly. If you know your stuff you can do a 4-song demo comfortably in 2 8-hour sessions.

[Antero]

I'd pass on that place. You can definitely find a better studio for less money.

BUT

You will definitely see great benefits recording in a real studio, so it's worth tracking one down.

BUT

You will need a full day at minimum. If you think you can get 4 songs recorded in three hours, you will be in for a nasty surprise.

[brad347]

For my last project I recorded and mixed a full record of very complex music with odd instrumentation (including a flute, upright bass, farfisa organ...) in 2 days so it CAN be done.

But all my guys were seasoned pros and I had good charts and we went in meaning business (but with ZERO rehearsal!) and cut six rather long pieces. Two takes each... more on one or two of the more difficult ones. tracked live. Mixed the next day (to 1/2" tape even). However I had very definite ideas of the sounds I wanted and was working with a good engineer so it all went smoothly. BE WARNED though that this is the exception rather than the rule.

All that to say that you can save MUCH time and money by having your ducks in a row BEFORE you go in and start rolling tape. Things always can and do go wrong though.

[tedm]

Yes I have.

As Matte is fond of saying, that's a process, not an event.

Have you ever tried tracking a full band, live, with prosumer gear?

[LSchefman]

>>I'd pass on that place. You can definitely find a better studio for less money.<<

I'm surprised at you guys. You have no idea whether the guy operating the gear is good, great, or not good. It's not about the gear, it's about how it's used.

If all you want to do is rent some equipment, go do that. If you want a good record, it's about who's making it, not what's making it.

Sorry. I really feel strongly about this. I've heard garbage coming out of million dollar rooms, and killer things coming out of very ordinary rigs, if the right person is at the helm. In this day and age especially, a "better studio" is all about the people operating it. And 40 bucks an hour is silly cheap. Imagine trying to pay rent and make a living on that kind of take.

I wouldn't work for that number with NO overhead.

[wescattle]

i understand
ill let this thread sink to the bottom and make another on getting my tascam dp-01 working
thanks

[dhines]

Without knowing more about the quality of your music, or the reason why you need to record, I would offer the following input...

1) Sgt. Peppers, and other great albums, excelled sonically because of one thing. TIME. They had the time to record the songs and experiment, capturing the best performance and arrangement.

2) Great songs are ALWAYS easy to record in ANY setting. If you've got good, undeniable material - any recording format will capture it and any listener will know it.

So maybe you should lean towards investing a few hundred dollars in good home recording equipment, preferably something like Cakewalk (ProTools, etc...) for computer recording. Lexicon Omega?

[GaryNattrass]

>>I'd pass on that place. You can definitely find a better studio for less money.<<

I'm surprised at you guys. You have no idea whether the guy operating the gear is good, great, or not good. It's not about the gear, it's about how it's used.

If all you want to do is rent some equipment, go do that. If you want a good record, it's about who's making it, not what's making it.

Sorry. I really feel strongly about this. I've heard garbage coming out of million dollar rooms, and killer things coming out of very ordinary rigs, if the right person is at the helm. In this day and age especially, a "better studio" is all about the people operating it. And 40 bucks an hour is silly cheap. Imagine trying to pay rent and make a living on that kind of take.

I wouldn't work for that number with NO overhead.

I agree with all of this it is what you do with the kit not what it is:

The number of home recording studios is great but just to set up a compressor correctly takes a lifetime of experience.

[Bassomatic]

I agree with all of this it is what you do with the kit not what it is:

The number of home recording studios is great but just to set up a compressor correctly takes a lifetime of experience.

Gotta agree with Gary (and Les). Request his demo reel and listen in.

[loudboy]

>>I'd pass on that place. You can definitely find a better studio for less money.<<

I'm surprised at you guys. You have no idea whether the guy operating the gear is good, great, or not good. It's not about the gear, it's about how it's used.

If all you want to do is rent some equipment, go do that. If you want a good record, it's about who's making it, not what's making it.

Sorry. I really feel strongly about this. I've heard garbage coming out of million dollar rooms, and killer things coming out of very ordinary rigs, if the right person is at the helm. In this day and age especially, a "better studio" is all about the people operating it. And 40 bucks an hour is silly cheap. Imagine trying to pay rent and make a living on that kind of take.

I wouldn't work for that number with NO overhead.

While I agree that the engineer is the most important part of the picture, I think the point being made is that in today's super-competitive market, you CAN have it all. $40/hr. will get you some nice outboard, top-name mics and an engineer who really knows what he's doing.

$40/hr. is high for what that guy's offering - both gearwise and sonically, if you'll listen to his samples. You could do that for $25/hr. at a dozen places around here.

As to your last comment, both the studio owner and I make money at $35/hr. - he's been doing it for over 20 years, I'm heading into year 7, next month. Sure, our wives work, but whose don't? My house and car are paid off, we've got very nice retirement savings programs going, carry no debt load and take 2-3 vacations/year. Our lifestyles are very comparable to those who make much more... In fact, I'd have to say we're much happier than most, because we don't have to support the huge superstructure of crap most people build, as an attempt to make themselves feel worthy.

Due to the white male/white collar skew on boards like these, it's very easy to forget that the average US household income is about $43,000/yr., which means that it's totally possible to live a more than satisfactory lifestyle, on what many people here would consider chump change. It's done through not buying into the false promises of consumerism, a little hard work early on and showing some self-control. And while it's a PITA every now and then, it's VERY nice to have music be a part of almost everything I do.

Sorry for the rant, and I still think dude should go into a studio. <g>

Loudboy

[covert]

If you, and the rest of your band are really well prepared, or have failry low standards, you might get 4 songs done in 3 hours.

5 minutes of music to one hour of work is a fairly common ratio.

$40/hour is a quite reasonable amount for studio with engineer.

You don't say much about the purpose of your recording. 4 songs isn't an album project, unless they are endless prog pieces. Is it a demo for yourselves? To send to possible gig bookers? an ep to sell at gigs? Appropriate levels of investment for these uses might vary.

[Bassomatic]

5 minutes of music to one hour of work is a fairly common ratio.

Not much music that i'd want to hear, i'm afraid!

[loudboy]

Not much music that i'd want to hear, i'm afraid!

For a local/regional release, standard production level, we use 12-15 hrs./song as our benchmark. It's right about 90% of the time.

It could be much less for a club demo - but I'd have a hard time doing anything that would very good in less than 10 hrs. for 4 songs. And that would be if the band was REALLY on it, and it was very basic stuff.

Loudboy

[LSchefman]

>>As to your last comment, both the studio owner and I make money at $35/hr.<<

>>In fact, I'd have to say we're much happier than most, because we don't have to support the huge superstructure of crap most people build, as an attempt to make themselves feel worthy<<

But I LOVE the superstructure of crap I built in an attempt to make myself feel worthy!

:)

Seriously, it's all relative. Everyone's perspective is different, and appreciated. I still feel that $40 an hour is seriously low for a real studio with real rent, real overhead, real equipment costs, and real personnel to pay.

Much more power to you if you can operate for less. My hat is off to you.

I'm currently composing and recording music for GM and Disney, so maybe I'm a bit jaded, since they have halfway decent budgets.

[Bloozman]

I just did a 3 song demo CD with a 4 piece band and it took 6 hours..we did some overdubbing though

[MichaelK]

Yet another thread I passed by for some reason known only to the Creator...

Better yet, get someone to videotape you at a gig or rehearsal and make a DVD of it
I think this is a smart approach. Studio CDs don't tell a club owner much about a cover band, really, all pristine and grid-aligned. But a live DVD with shots of the crowd would be unique and (I would think) of greater interest to a club owner. Pack the house with your friends, tell them the first round is on you, make it a party.

Around here the minimum one would pay a musician with a home studio in the bonus room, a couple of mics and not much skill would be about $25 an hour. Obviously it goes up from there.

[Bloozman]

The DVD idea is a good one...Some woman video taped our band at an outdoor festival this year, and the result was excellent...but please tell whomever is doing the video taping to refrain from talking to other people while the tape is running...While our DVD is very good, the talking by people close by the camera was really distracting...just a tip...Good Luck!!
Bloozman

[thesedaze]

The DVD idea is a good one...Some woman video taped our band at an outdoor festival this year, and the result was excellent...but please tell whomever is doing the video taping to refrain from talking to other people while the tape is running...While our DVD is very good, the talking by people close by the camera was really distracting...just a tip...Good Luck!!
Bloozman

That's where a seperate audio track typically steps in. Some sort of Board/Stage/Audience matrix is best for live.

[NuSkoolTone]

Have you heard this guy's work? If not, I agree to pass on that studio. Their gear is VERY pro-sumer. Their setup looks effective to get the job done though. Their "Rooms' are part of somebody's house. Those are NOT "Rooms".
Someone should tell that guy that Pro Tools LE Digi 002 is NOT "Pro tools" and to stop advertising it. Very much how a Chevy Cavalier Z24 is NOT a Camaro Z28 if you get what I mean.

Ok, I just listened to his "Portfolio." I would Definetly pass. I just did a band myself on probably even more modest gear (Why I insist you listen to their work) and IMHO it's much better. Now I'm not really a business, the drummer was my friend and I gave them a great price. (I am near Danbury, if you are curious PM me) From that session the Guitar player wants to hire me to do his Demo.

Lastly 3-4 hours is a stretch. I mean perhaps you could just run the tape off a board at a reheasal studio with a miked up setup, but I doubt that's what you want. Plan at least a full day. I'm not sure how anal you want to get about it (Overdubs, etc) but all that stuff takes time. Assuming it's a typical "Rock band" IME, it's one day to setup up (Because I'm a mobile "studio", otherwise this would just be an afternoon), One day to Record Tracks, and One day to do Vocals (Nice and Fresh!) for best results. This is assuming Overdubs for Vocals, Leads, and possibly Doubling guitars. Then there is Mix/Pseudo Mastering

Anyway, shop around and see who's out there talk to your friends and see who's recording where and getting what results. Because when it comes to this stuff, YMMV BIG TIME.

[covert]

Pro tools are pro tools. Sessions from le import intact into the higher versions. That's the sole reason many studios have it at all. So you acn record there and take it elsewhere to mix.

[NuSkoolTone]

Pro tools are pro tools. Sessions from le import intact into the higher versions. That's the sole reason many studios have it at all. So you acn record there and take it elsewhere to mix.

Well that's one way to look at it. However I beleive in LE you don't get RTAS/TDM compatibility no? Mainly becuase it's software and not using hardware.

People convert Pro Tools with Nuendo in Nashville all day long, so personally I'd rather have the real thing. One or the other that is.

To me, when someone says "Pro tools" I'm thinking HD 192k. Anything else is "Project Tools".

[Bassomatic]

To me, when someone says "Pro tools" I'm thinking HD 192k. Anything else is "Project Tools".

Ease of compatibility aside, it's the skill of the engineer, not the gear, in most of these demo cases.

[MichaelK]

However I beleive in LE you don't get RTAS/TDM compatibility no? Mainly becuase it's software and not using hardware.

Incorrect.

To me, when someone says "Pro tools" I'm thinking HD 192k. Anything else is "Project Tools".

When your premise is wrong, what's your "thinking" worth? And since when is 192k some new qualitative standard below which anything else is somehow not real? On what real-world facts do you base that?

[NuSkoolTone]

Incorrect.
Ok Fine, enlighten me. Then what does all the hardware in an HD system run? I don't think it's just converters no? I thought at least for the TDM stuff you had to have the hardware. I remember seeing RTAS install as an option on many of my plug-ins so that will run native if the program (Only digi stuff) will support it.



When your premise is wrong, what's your "thinking" worth? And since when is 192k some new qualitative standard below which anything else is somehow not real? On what real-world facts do you base that?
Is there a reason why you need to get personal here?
I'm really talking about the hardware, not the sample rate. Personally I don't see a reason to go above 44.1k in most cases. Digi002 hardware is a FAR cry from HD. One is professoinal gear and one is pro-sumer gear.

I don't feel my Premise is wrong. Go ask the guys at Gearslutz if there is a difference between Pro Tools LE and a digi002 and REAL protools and HD hardware. The big rooms that advertise "Pro Tools" aren't using digi002 hardware. I think it's misleading to advertise "Pro Tools" to the average consumer when in reality it's Pro Tools LE.

Bassomatic, I agree. The Engineer is key. From what I heard, the engineering didn't sound like it was happening. All things being equal, gear matters too (Otherwise would this site even exist?). For what he's charging one can go into a room that DOES have the gear most likely, REAL rooms, and better engineers. Not that great results can't be had on the digi002! SURELY they can! However, if the engineering isn't up to snuff, then the better gear will decrease the chances of screwing it up. Then again who am I kidding? If the engineer sucks, it's a crapshoot regardless. This is why the FIRST question I asked was: "Have you heard this guy's work?".

All I'm saying is about Bang for the Buck here. If this guy was charging $20/hr and calling it a Project studio with Pro Tools Compatibility to larger studios fine, but to call it a "Pro Tools Recording Studio" I feel is a stretch. Sure the guy's gotta market himself, but what about the poor guy who books him and doesn't know better?

[covert]

I don't feel my Premise is wrong. Go ask the guys at Gearslutz if there is a difference between Pro Tools LE and a digi002 and REAL protools and HD hardware.
Then ask them if, when you subtract out the hardware, there's any useful difference in the sound.


The big rooms that advertise "Pro Tools" aren't using digi002 hardware. I think it's misleading to advertise "Pro Tools" to the average consumer when in reality it's Pro Tools LE.
Any room that is advertising pro tools isn't a big room. Big rooms aell themselves on the quality of the rooms, the amenities, and sometimes on some particularly spectacular and unusual pieces of gear. If you need PT they either have it or can rent it. Many prefer Radar or other daw software anyway.


Bassomatic, I agree. The Engineer is key. From what I heard, the engineering didn't sound like it was happening. All things being equal, gear matters too (Otherwise would this site even exist?). For what he's charging one can go into a room that DOES have the gear most likely, REAL rooms, and better engineers. Not that great results can't be had on the digi002! SURELY they can! However, if the engineering isn't up to snuff, then the better gear will decrease the chances of screwing it up. Then again who am I kidding? If the engineer sucks, it's a crapshoot regardless. This is why the FIRST question I asked was: "Have you heard this guy's work?".

All I'm saying is about Bang for the Buck here. If this guy was charging $20/hr and calling it a Project studio with Pro Tools Compatibility to larger studios fine, but to call it a "Pro Tools Recording Studio" I feel is a stretch. Sure the guy's gotta market himself, but what about the poor guy who books him and doesn't know better?
Here we get into some other issues. First the "average consumer" usually has a few buzz words they know about, like PT, Neumann, Avalon etc. It's like the "dubly' in Spinal Tap.

Second, a PT studio is meaningless. PT is only part of the equation. There is nothing that any one daw can do that another can't, or even that an analog studio can't.

Third, all things are never equal. Yes gear matters. In many cases it can make things easier or quicker. It never replaces good songs, nor time and attention. In reality, I pretty much regard saying, "we have pt," as the equivalent of, "if you can't play, we can probably edit things so it seems like you can."

Finally, PT is a brand, not a particular thing. I can say I have a Gibson guitar, and mean either a truly fine Les Paul, or a Corvus. Posession of either will not mean that I can play anything worth hearing. Having the top of the line pt rig won't mean that my reuslts are any good either.

[NuSkoolTone]

Then ask them if, when you subtract out the hardware, there's any useful difference in the sound.
Well of course the sound difference it's about the hardware, I don't know how different the sound engine is in software, but I would assume one is a derivative of the other. If there wasn't a difference in convertors and such going in, people wouldn't pay thousands for them alone. If memory serves, the most exclusive plugs for PT are the TDM ones that require the hardware no?


Any room that is advertising pro tools isn't a big room. Big rooms sell themselves on the quality of the rooms, the amenities, and sometimes on some particularly spectacular and unusual pieces of gear. If you need PT they either have it or can rent it. Many prefer Radar or other daw software anyway. Fair enough.


Here we get into some other issues. First the "average consumer" usually has a few buzz words they know about, like PT, Neumann, Avalon etc. It's like the "dubly' in Spinal Tap. Right, but with Neumann and PT there's items that simply has the brand name on it, and items that are responsible for the brand name recognition. If you're gonna shout from the hills "I have X!" IMO it should be real deal, not the entry level bottom feeder stuff.


Second, a PT studio is meaningless. PT is only part of the equation. There is nothing that any one daw can do that another can't, or even that an analog studio can't.
Well, I disagree here on the Digital vs. Analog bit, but this comes back to the skill of the engineer thing.


Third, all things are never equal. Yes gear matters. In many cases it can make things easier or quicker. It never replaces good songs, nor time and attention. In reality, I pretty much regard saying, "we have pt," as the equivalent of, "if you can't play, we can probably edit things so it seems like you can."
No arguement there. That's one way to look at it.


Finally, PT is a brand, not a particular thing. I can say I have a Gibson guitar, and mean either a truly fine Les Paul, or a Corvus. Posession of either will not mean that I can play anything worth hearing. Having the top of the line pt rig won't mean that my reuslts are any good either.
See my comments above regarding brand names. I agree the engineer comes first before the gear. If you don't have either though, I contend that you shouldn't be advertising "Brand X" and "expert engineers".

[covert]

I'm not sure that in the end we are that far apart, a few things though.

Converters can be an issue. I haven't had the chance to really do comparisons.

Native daw performance, for the most part, seems to have caught up with external processing models. From my perspective, all plug ins are likely to be lame, but there isn't much difference between a really good RTAS, AU, VST plug, and a really good TDM plug.

I have ptle. It's getting used on my laptop for notebook demo stuff. If I ever need to put serious work into a pt format, for someone to take elsewhere, it'll serve. At the point where I open my place to the random public, I'll also probably buy a Neumann mic, even if I think I have mics as good or better.

Neither of those things will be a main selling point, but they will keep me from being written off by ignorant potential clients.

The original post in this thread was from someone looking to do a quick and dirty demo type thing, and questioning a $40/hr rate. Last I looked, that kind of money would hardly keep up the credit card interest on the high end pt rigs.