well, the op asks the question: "does it take good gear?"


and that's a loaded question....

there are tons of anecdotal stories out there, of pros using 'less than stellar' gear to get their signature sounds.

but typically, the albums you enjoy listening to, were recorded in professional studios, with professional gear.

so, just because bono sang a tune in a hand held sm58......

or van halen bangs away on a guitar that cost him about $150......

doesn't mean they didn't use an extremely high end board and outboard gear to run all that stuff thru to mix it...


and i think guys that are just getting into recording, i mean really diving into it for the first time, aren't really sure about the limitations of 'pro-sumer' gear, and don't realize that for the most part, they really don't pass muster, compared to pro gear.


i'm lucky enough to have worked in, recorded in, a few pro-level studios, to get to hear the difference first hand.

and i've been engineering and recording myself and others, for almost 27 years now, and where i'm at right now, is that i use what i have, as good as i can, and i'm ok with that.
i can't afford pro gear, probably never will, but i still learn techniques from pros, and develop my ear, and all that.....


the point about 'good tracks' i was trying to make...


is that if you have a very nice mic.....
and a nice preamp......

and a nice convertor, either sound card, interface, or other....


you can learn to capture 'good tracks' in terms of sonic quality...

but as you said before, the performance will always trump the sound quality, unless it's just dirt poor recordings.

The answer to the question comes only through hands on and ears on experience. It is judgemental in nature which would make a forum like this a bad place to get an opinion. Only a percentage of the population would agree to what is a good sounding take and a poor sounding take. But, generally, listen to an album you consider great. It probably came pretty close to the mark to a great sounding set of tracks before it was mixed. More so on the acoustic, bluegrass country, blues and early rock type of music and less so on today's rock, metal, hip hop, pop or club type music. The later being known for a higher level of manipulation than the former during mixing.

I think for alot of hobbyist, it's easy to fall into the "good enough" trap after a take. Then it's on to the next element of the arrangement. I'm speaking more along the performance lines here. Unless there is another set of objective ears involved, the shortcomings of a take won't become apparent until the song is listened to by someone else who is a critical listener.

I got smacked around in Songs forum a couple of times when I started posting here, and it was well deserved. IMO, getting critical with ones self will go a long ways towards spending the time necessary to get the right take.

Mixing becomes so much easier when you're satisfied with all the tracks involved in a mix, instead of trying to hide something, or just flat out hoping no one will notice that guitar clam, or the bass pushing and pulling the beat in the wrong spots, or that vocal line that's off on the phrasing or flat.

Randy

If you have an Etta James lurking around in your neighbourhood then I would suggest $200 worth of interface and microphone will be enough to get you noticed.

Sincerely.

I really do think the performance aspect is THAT important.  Often hobbiest recordings don't lack gear, talent or enthusiasm, but they do lack that element of somebody driving who's actually shooting for the top over and above a tidal wave of similarly completely adequate performances.

I hear a lot of stuff that is all technically very nice and clever and all that but very often it sounds like it's being done by somebody falling asleep on the couch.

I guess it's down to what you want out of it, collecting gear is a fun hobby, getting good at DAW operation may be fun for some also, but you best shout loud if you want to get your music heard because there's plenty out there that will if you don't.

If you're running a pro-studio then best you are equipped for it but if it's your music you want to put forward you'll spend your time more wisely concentrating on that than worrying too much about a -2db dip at 5,400kHz in your room.

It is easy these days to make very good quality output with a fairly small budget, extraodinary talent however will always fetch a premium, and behind that 'talent' is normally somebody that is prepared to do what is required to make it happen.

For me it's just a bit more enthralling than doing jigsaws currently as I'm not expecting anything out of it but I'm enjoying the use of what I have.  Playing was my living not recording.

rsp@odyssey.net


Mixing becomes so much easier when you're satisfied with all the tracks involved in a mix, instead of trying to hide something, or just flat out hoping no one will notice that guitar clam, or the bass pushing and pulling the beat in the wrong spots, or that vocal line that's off on the phrasing or flat.

+1
 
In this 'interesting-but-difficult' discussion: 3 tracks (or critical stems) come to (my) mind after 30-40 posted songs (and their countless mutations) that I've struggled with:
 
1) Lead Vox
2) Bass
3) Kick Drum
 
These tracks seem to require solid "performance, performance, performance" (per Jon).  And they require a lot of artistic and scientific fx (pre and post fader), IMHO. 
 
When these 3 layers are solid, my heart and mind join as one -- hahahahaha!  The rest of the layers will follow.
 
Note:  Did any of you find it curious that I left out guitar, piano, and keys? 
 
Though I perform these instruments regularly (3 time/week) in jam sessions and gigs ...
 
... for good tracking purposes, I'm learning to place guitar, piano, and keys ... on the back-burner.  I may be wrong.

Jonbouy


The 3 important things.  More important than gear.

Performance.

Performance.

Performance.



You may be able to redeem a good performance made on average gear, but no amount of gear will make a duff performance sound good.

+1000000
 
Think of so many great songs that truly sound like crap, engineering-wise. Most Motown has no low end. But the performances are captured in such a special way that those songs will still be playing at our great grandkids' weddings.
Great energetic performances wipe away all technical deficiencies.
"Johnny B Goode"
"Woolly Bully"
"Louie Louie"
"I Wanna Hold Your Hand"
Any Ramones tune
early The Who
 

Jonbouy


The 3 important things.  More important than gear.

Performance.

Performance.

Performance.



You may be able to redeem a good performance made on average gear, but no amount of gear will make a duff performance sound good.

+1000000
 
Think of so many great songs that truly sound like crap, engineering-wise. Most Motown has no low end. But the performances are captured in such a special way that those songs will still be playing at our great grandkids' weddings.
Great energetic performances wipe away all technical deficiencies.
"Johnny B Goode"
"Woolly Bully"
"Louie Louie"
"I Wanna Hold Your Hand"
Any Ramones tune
early The Who
 

Thanks for the great posts!

Just to give you some background, I am a beginner hobbyist. ...Or perhaps one step below that. lol

I asked the tracking question because the original thread about mixing, said that "good" tracking didn't require, or required very little, compression, eq and reverb. At least, that is what I heard. If that is the case, then when you are tracking, what are you doing, technically, that makes your track easier to mix?

If there are "things" during tracking that that make it easier to mix, then it makes sense to strive for those "things", so later on, it is easier to mix.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the concepts?

Again, thanks for the great posts!

I'll take a shot explaining this on vocals. 

A good quality large condenser microphone capable of capturing the voice accurately and cleanly. A decent preamp that works well with the mic. (This can turn into a deeply technical topic). If the levels on the preamp are set properly to capture the voice, then it becomes about the room. Have reflections, flutter, bad echoes, background noises (fans, dogs barking, hum from devices) been eliminated? A decent pop filter properly spaced from the mic for the singer and style isn't a must, but it's highly desireable. 

Assuming these issues have been addressed, its now about mic technique, and knowledge of material. If the singer has the song down pat, and knows proper mic technique, getting a good take is about nailing the emotions of the song topic and the message the lyrics are meant to deliver. If the singer delivers the right performance with the proper technique, there shouldn't be a need to do much to the track other than perhaps a bit of appropriate reverb and a little eq adjustments for balance with the other elements of the song. 

This is something beginners seem to struggle with. It seems they think their voice needs alot of reverb. It doesn't. In most cases, you can use a plate reverb and dial it up til you can hear it working. Then back it off a bit, and your set. If they have to use alot of compression, it's due to improper mic technique in most cases. Compression is misused way too often for making a vocal louder across the board. That's NOT what it's for.

Randy 

Randy

Assuming these issues have been addressed, its now about mic technique, and knowledge of material. If the singer has the song down pat, and knows proper mic technique, getting a good take is about nailing the emotions of the song topic and the message the lyrics are meant to deliver. If the singer delivers the right performance with the proper technique, there shouldn't be a need to do much to the track other than perhaps a bit of appropriate reverb and a little eq adjustments for balance with the other elements of the song. 

I would actually disagree with this. There is live vocal mic technique, and studio vocal mic technique. They are two different things. When singing live, the singer should back away from the mic when singing louder, and come closer when singing softer. This works very will live. But not so well in the studio. Here's why.

Proximity effect - we all know about it. If the singer is singing very softly and close into the mic on a soft bit then ramps up for a belt and moves away, there will be a change in level of proximity effect introduced into the recording. It might sound perfectly volume balanced in the recording, but gets weak and thin on the highs, and more powerful on the lows, often the opposite of what you want! Typically (and really it does depend on the sound the producer is going for), you want that voice to sound consistent. You don't want it to be changing for strong lows and very clear, bright highs to a more mellow, thin sound over the song. You want it to always sound full and smooth. This is why I'd suggest actually keeping the head fixed. Find the right distance/position from the mic (for good tonality) and stay there.


Room Ambience - If you're not recording in a very dead environment, when you move away from the mic, you will introduce more room ambience into the recording. It may be noticeable, and may not. Depends on your setup and singing. But something to keep in mind.




I would prefer to sing consistently and then use a well set-up compressor to smooth things out for the above reasons. There are some little mic techniques you can get away with IF YOU ARE VERY GOOD such as sibilance reduction (slightly angling your head away on sibilance sounds) and plosives if you aren't using a pop filter (which you should be). Screw this up though and it's going to sound bad.




On the other hand, if you are going for more of a live type sound in your recording, live mic technique may infact be more suited to your music.




At the very least, something to keep in mind when recording vocals!!