A thought about comparing mixes?

Please note, this question and thread is not a challenge to anyone! 
 
OK, with that said, I think it would be interesting to do a side by side comparison of the quality of the final mix comparing someone who has tons of expensive equipment, mics, limiters, ect., to someone who has hardly anything at all.  If only acoustic instruments (all live miked) were used, what do you think the comparison would show?
 
Would the more expensive studio sound x times that much better?  A lot better?  A little better?  The same?
 
This would not be meant to put down anyone or embarass anyone but simply help clarify that in the right hands - it really does or does not matter what equipment you have if you know how to use it?  Or, does that $2k mic going through the $1K compressor completely blow away the $100 mic? 
 
With today's digital technology, when you carefully listen to commercially produced popular, blues, country, and rock music, I have heard songs on this forum that approach that standard and many do not of course.  With that said, is it possible to quantify the quality of music based on what you own?
 
Rimshot
 
 
 

Good point Ed.  Maybe too many variables in this? 

I also don't believe we could really hear much difference betwee the "big" studio vs. the "smaller" one for specific instruments/vocals perhaps but I thought it would be interesting to hear what others thought. 

If we were comparing drums, live strings, horns, etc., the responses might vary greatly.

Thanks for your input.

Jim

 All other things being equal I think the hardware mix would be a *little* better. If the mixer were good.

 When you say, "hardly anything at all", I would say that you need a good DAW with what is considered to be good Plug-ins.

 

 

 

Starise


When you say, "hardly anything at all", I would say that you need a good DAW with what is considered to be good Plug-ins.

Agreed. I assumed in Jimmy's thought was that the DAW and plugins were a given to be good.


But of that "good", I've heard it said (upstairs) many times that the plugs that Cake provides are as good as any (if you really know how to "work" them). There are those that say many freebies are actually all you need. That is a debate for another thread, though.

the interesting experiment would be to put the average engineer in a top end studio and the excellent engineer in the basement studio.

bapu

daryl1968


the interesting experiment would be to put the average engineer in a top end studio and the excellent engineer in the basement studio.

Excellent idea.


Were you thinking Mutt Lange or Alan Parsons?

Both :)

bapu


So who's on top?

I don't know?

Everybody mixing the same files would tell you far more about people's mixing ability than it would about gear. Unless everyone was equally awesome or equally poor.

Love the idea and approach on this Jim.

Id like to see it done with the same sample 
Then done only in X1 and only what comes with it. I dont believe the quality of the DAW would be a factorconsidering it is only X1 and ones knowledge and experience being used.  

Id love to see the difference in those levels, and certainly not to prove someone is better that another but to give inspiration to those who want to learn more and stick with it-much like myself  

John T


Everybody mixing the same files would tell you far more about people's mixing ability than it would about gear. Unless everyone was equally awesome or equally poor.

I'm talking about tracking, mixing, the whole deal and my point is more about the man (or woman) than the gear. Mutt Lange come and have a go at my place and I'll go to his.
Hang on Shania - I'm on my way (I think they divorced but she could be popping round to pick up a cardigan she left there)

Big studios can produce awful sounding recordings (Metallica, Nelly Fertado/Timbaland for example) and small studios can produce some wonderful sounds (SMB/James1213 up in the song forum for example). I think that for the average listener their would be nothing distinguishing in their minds about the studios.

That being said, when taken to the next level (ultra high fidelity audiophile), things might sound a bit different. Consider recordings by Deutsche Grammophon. They are generally phenomenal. But its not just equipment. There are a combination of factors: high-end studios attract high-end engineers.

I think that this just might work out if done from even average..whatever that means...players as well.  


But I do see an interesting thing here. What is meant by big studios anymore? Are we talking about those studios that have the recording/practicing rooms as well as the main studio? Mastering studios? To me, there seems a number of studios exist that can be called 'big'...maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree here...


Now that I think about it..what about mixes done 'live' so to speak?

Were you one of the 1% 15% McGQ?

And today we have EZMix Dirt Pack.

That should up the game, no?

great question:
i recently recorded a double cd for blues veterans Salty Dog.
their last 2 cd`s had all the life and feel squeezed out of them during "mastering".
The brief was they wanted it to sound like you were actually in the room with them.
they were very happy with the mix but their label knocked it back as it was "too raw" -they actually said "too many artifacts"in their email-and needed to be remixed and mastered,by them of course, for roughly 10times the cost of the recording.
the band said no,used a pro pressing house for a thousand copies and sold out on tour.
this was my first real commercial mix as i ALWAYS send the product to the pro`s for mixing/mastering.
IMHO nothing beats a seasoned pro with quality outboard equipment.
however some of the songs on the forum-especially the CHB are up there.
i use twin matched cd players to toggle back and forth between mixes and the problem here would you would need more than A/B-you would need the whole alphabet.
great question though.
cheers