hey,credit where it`s due-plus i get another post count by thanking you for thanking me-how cool is that.

succinct as usual mr flipper.
i am trying to promote the lo-fi genre:cheap gear,home made studio, enthusiastic amateurs and recycled riffs. 
we call it  "Naive"Rock although using recycled riffs is probably disingenous.
cheers 

bitflipper


 In my experience, the biggest variable is the skill and imagination of the mixer. Equipment is a trivial factor. Technique, IMO, trumps gear every time.
 

So I give Pat Matheny my acoustic and some condenser mics and you tell him it's a trivial factor, don't worry because the biggest variable is covered...we have a fantastic producer/engineer OR you can play with your normal gear and Bit will hit the record button.....
I think you'd have a job Bit.
The important part of this is me getting to meet Pat Matheny.
 
 
 
 

How about this:
Mike mentioned a group mix thing.  How about a blues number?  We can pass it around so anyone who wants to add to it can (that will get real interesting when the final mix is done!).  

I don't have live drums set up and don't own the mics anymore to do it.  
If somebody can come up with a chord progression that somebody else could put live drums to, we would have the basic wave file to send out. 

Anyone could work with it to add parts.  They upload their waves to DropBox or something similar so we can download them.
When we all agree it is done with parts, we start mixing. 
If not blues, I am open to anything.  Just a suggestion.

Rimshot

I think the "quality" starts with the performer.

Musicians spend their lives attempting to acquire "their" sound.

When the ones that do acquire a sound they want to record or somebody
that has recognized their sound wants to record it.

When it's time to record them there are two major possibilites:

One is that the producer tries to capture them as they are and "polish" the recording
in a way that doesn't change the original "character" sound.

Another is that the producer believes that he can improve their sound and does his thing.

I'm reminded of the Buddy Holly story.
IIRC a friend of his that had a radio station recorded a live performance of him
at a roller skating rink that was being broadcast over the air.
The station owner then sent the recording to a major label - I don't recall the name.
Somebody thought it had been approved to press so they did and it hit the charts.

Well that must mean that the radio station guy captured Buddy and Crickets and the
guy at the station thought the recording came out approved from the labels studio.

Well Buddy had the oppertunity to gain control of "his" sound as producer for any
recording done at that studio. His concern was to capture "their" sound and I really
don't believe the studio equipment much mattered to him. What did matter is that there
wasn't some guy working it that was going to screw their sound up.

For me to hear any mixing skill or equipment value comparisons I'd first have to hear
the original performance.
How their performance is processed in comparison to their sound/character can then be evaluated. JMO and not sure if it even relates come to think of it.

Rimshot


Well stated Spacey and a great story.  I agree with you 100% but even a simple test of mixing equipment, styles, production techniques all from the same source would be fun to try anyway?

Rimshot

Great fun indeed Rimshot.
Not sure I understand the mixing equipment part but I can see the mixing/mastering
results being evaluated.