? Why would anyone do that with a home studio? I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here...

Quite infrequent if you bought even half-decent gear/software

Well sure, this presumes the OP/whoever doesn't consider this all "work" and to some extent wants to do it.

?? I see nothing in the OP about trying to make this a career or even a part-time "pro" thing. My guess (repeat and emphasize my guess) is he's a hobbyist, so that's largely (but not entirely, necessarily) N/A.

Why would anyone put their mics away after use? How about dust and smoke and moisture? How about so they don't get knocked over by the cat? How about if they are using a room in their house that is not a dedicated studio-only space? Like if they are: "living with someone" as the OP is. How about needing to break down the drum mics when it's time to record guitar? Maybe they can't afford to buy a set of mics to exclusively leave up on the drums full time? I don't know how everybody works.

But neither do you.

OP called a home studio a "means to a goal". To me, that says he has a goal and whatever that goal is, it is not "learning how to use the recording equipment". Everyone is a 'hobbyist' until they are bringing in more money from their recording projects than they are spending on setting up and maintaining their studio. In any case, the OP was a bit vague . Which means that both replies that assume he is OK with remaining a hobbyist and replies that assume a certain level of ambition on his part are equally on-topic.

OP said this:
What is so threatening about someone considering just focusing on writing, performing and creating? Does the self-recording paradigm really need your "defense"? Isn't it already the default around here?

You know, for a guy who just said: you sure are quick to come up with a rationale against every possible situation where anyone might consider it. I did not suggest that you go to professional studio. But I will continue to suggest it to those who who are clearly dissatisfied with how self-recording is turning out for them.

As I look around GS, I see more than a few people bitching. A lot of people feel as if they have been sold a bill of goods about how 'easy' and 'cheap' it was going to be. There are a lot more "means to an end" people than you seem willing to acknowledge.

I hear them complaining, even if you do not.

More than just a few dedicated commercial studios are not going to come anywhere close to “the production quality they had in those great studios.” To be discrete—and as the length of such a failed list would be exhausting—I won’t name names.

The reasons for this are (I believe) far less a result of the facilities—and mostly because of the compelling nature of the music itself and the talent that created it (musicians, producers, and engineers).

If and how one realizes his/her vision is hopefully in competent and caring hands either way (commercial or home studio).

@ dunderogge is in the saddle => @ dunderogge ’s call and @ dunderogge ‘s ultimate responsibility, either way.

Satisfactory home-based facilities are very often within reach, financially competitive and compelling nowadays. And it mostly ain’t rocket science. But the path to producing great art seems seldom 'easy' and 'cheap’.

Still, put Donny Hathaway on electric piano, Richard Tee on organ, and a rhythm section including Bernard Purdie on drums and Chuck Rainey on bass with a great arrangement of a great tune—maybe it doesn’t absolutely have to be tracked at Atlantic Studios?


We get to competence by effort and caring over time.

Ray H.

There are some wise thoughts offered in this thread.
A newbie in any part of the performing, recording and mixing process will have a reasonable chance at completely screwing up the end result. A person who does all of the parts of the process and is a newbie in most of them will certainly compromise the quality of the final mix.
But… If a person is dogged and honest with him or her self, that person can identify and work on faults and deficiencies. That person can become a better writer, player, singer, recordist and mixer. Or they can determine that there are aspects of the process best done by others.
There is so much to learn and practice in each area that you should be pleased if your early efforts are anywhere near the ballpark you’d like to be in. So any “sorta-decent” results early on might indicate that you have a chance to be the musical genius you’d like to be.
And although there are certain approaches and specific equipment that can help you reach your goals, there is seldom any “magic bullet” that will get you to your end goal overnight.
But if you can’t hear an honest playback of what you are doing, it is very difficult to improve any aspect of the process. So reliable monitoring (including the listening environment) is probably as close to magic as you can get.

It wasn't until I started recording that I realized I had poor plectrum technique, and that my "anchor-pinkie" was causing unflattering noise, as well. And this was after playing for 2 decades.
Clearly, I wasn't as good as I thought I was.

Why do you have to choose between composing and recording?
It's not like they are mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, IME. As has been indicated, a minimalistic recording setup is NOT prohibitively expensive, and as to the learning/commitment curve? What the hell else are you going to do? Your entire life is a learning exercise. The day you didn't learn something was your first day dead.

My silly advice is to refuse to choose!

If you are struggling with what to choose between, you really want to do both.
No?

So DO so!
I can promise you that it will make you a better musician. All the way around.

Best,
Frank

Here’s my problem. Listen to the first 20 seconds of this Lana del Rey song. At around 13 seconds she sings the words ”stressed” and then ”tested” and then ”like” and then ”debutants”.



The way the t’s and k’s and s’s sound. There and through the song. I don’t like it. And my recordings have that too! In fact the whole sound is very similar. I also have sparse arrangement and vocals upfront. And the songs and type of singing are similar too.

But I don’t want the consonants to sound like that. I don’t really think it’s singing technique - is it?

It sounds like artifacts of the recording or processing to me.

Compression brings it out but I need that to make the vocals sit up front, and be close. I don’t use a lot. The Retro STA-Level. The middle setting everyone seems to use (double mode, 10-20 db GR).

Mic is M49V, into V72, into Burl B2.

I don’t track with the STA-Level on the way in (it raises the noise floor too much). I do a re-run after it’s recorded (meaning it does another pass through the B2 input transformer on the way back in. The DAC it goes out of for that is the Lynx Hilo.)

The sound is, like Lana’s, really good EXCEPT for those consonant artifacts. My voice sounds a tiny bit too airy and thin/bright/cold maybe (I believe the M49V does that) but I believe I can give it a low mid boost with the Curve Bender once I’ve got the recording right. I’ve tried that and it works. But if you know other means to get that right I’m interested too, or if you think a ribbon mic would work better.

I’ve debated with myself, and as much I as I would love to, and as much as it would be the best, I’m simply not ready to share anything of my own here (I have my reasons, and I’ll know when/if so let’s not
discuss that).

So if you have a minute, listen to Lana and how that sounds, it’s a very similar problem. There’s gotta be ways to fix it.

I guess some folks feel that any/all Sibilance is bad. I'm probably an outlier, but
I think Sibilance is a natural result of close or intimate recordings. To me, reasonable sibilance is normal, and expected. We make "S" sounds to convey esses. When I hear slightly pronounced esses in an intimate recording, it adds credibility. An intimate recording with over-suppresses esses...just doesnt sound as natural, to me.
All esses aren't bad, just like all distortion isn't. Tastefully-allowed sibilance adds clarity to vocals, as well as a little excitement, to me.

When she leans in close and says "yes", I guess I don't find myself distracted by a little sibilance...

O.k. just wild guessing here. But some of it might be her mouth. And then the compressor adds to it, or a de-esser that was put on there. I've done a lot of vo sessions where people just had weird clicking or other essy sounds coming out of their mouths. Sometimes mic placement, like singing further away or under the mic a bit would help. Other times different mics would help. I think I heard someone say sucking on a piece of apple would help essy mouths, but don't hold me to that. And I'm going to add to this to say, that I would be willing to put money on the fact that the average listener would never, ever notice something like this and it would have no bearing on whether they liked the song or not. When making a recording sometimes we want it to be as perfect as possible. There is only so much time in a day if you want to get something done. Maybe it's not a bad idea to put on the hat of the average listener sometimes. My wife is often telling me to STFU when we watch a movie or show where I point out the minor flaws in the editing or sound that no one else would notice.

Actually the ”s” disturbs me the least of the consonants in that example.

The way the ”k” sounds like in ”like” is what I realiy have a problem with. And then the t’s. And the s’s meeting other consonants like in ”stressed”.

What do you recommend? I’ve experimented with de-essing using the RND MBP with an EQ sidechain to make it work like a de-esser, and get somewhat better results.

Also have the Valley de-essers but I find it hard to find a sweet spot. Too little and it does nothing, too much and the k’s and t’s sound more artifacty, and the s’s sounds more like those consonants.

I’m thinking about buying a DBX 902 or a Derr-esser. But I’d hope not to (I have so much gear already and I also need food n stuff). But if it’s really the way I’ll do it.

Volume automation can’t help with the k’s and t’s can it? Because they need to be audible.

Here’s what I consider a very good recording. Dusty’s ”Just a little loving”. As you can hear, the ”s’s are quite prominent. Which I’m fine with.

But the k’s and t’s sound good like in ”… from some loving someone like you” or ”coming your way”.



In Lana’s recording it sounds like the t’s and k’s are recorded in a different space/room or added on to the recording with sample replacement (they way some do with drums). Artificial. Not an integral part of the melodicness of the rest of the vocal line.

I don’t think they did any sample replacement on that. But something happened with Lana’s ”like” that didn’t happen wih Dusty’s ”like”. Despite both recordings being clearly essy and apparently not heavily de-essed (not that they did that at Dusty’s time but you get the point).

Just an opinion, but I believe the amount of compression used can enhance the consonants. It would be an easier call if I could hear the dry, unprocessed vocal track. Then I could determine if compression is actually needed, and in what amount. I wonder if the consonants remain that harsh with the compressor bypassed? I have preferred to leave a lot of my quiet/intimate vocals uncompressed, since they were not particularly over-dynamic to begin with.
Just like with reverb, it takes a while to determine tasteful compression applications. Compression is such a lovely, double-edged sword. Sure, it can really enhance vocals, but at a distinct trade-off. Noise, room, and consonants are enhanced, as well.

Honest question, Trem:
Do you always compress?

I can't help but feel that, sometimes, compression is contra-indicated...

Warning! Hobbyist opinions on the loose, today. My spiked coffees are tasting a little too good...

Edit: I've been reading your posts, of late. You seem to be a bit discouraged.
I'm here to tell you we ALL feel that way right before the '"breakthrough".
Hang in there. It would be a shame to waste the traction you've already achieved.

Best,
Frank

That's for sure a vocal thing. Her voice sounds like that with those consonants.

Compression will only make it more obvious. That Lana record was tracked with a Wunder CM7 into a BAE and then a CL1B so the gear is really not the issue. I don't really think it's an issue at all but if you don't like it then you should try recording with a dynamic or a ribbon, because those sounds will be brought forward by most condensers.

Yo could also try something darker like 414 B-ULS or a Manley Silver.

Regarding the Lana del Rey recording, I would prefer more space between her and the microphone. It’s not just fricative consonants. . .

I could hear (maybe even, feel) the wet splash of saliva under her tongue—too much information for me.


But it is the popular modern aesthetic in recent years, and not a criticism of her talent.

Ray H.

Indeed. I'm thinking Dusty was 6 inches further away from her mic than Lana was from hers.
Even if Lana stayed that close, but went 5 degrees off-axis, I believe those consonants would have softened a bit.

Thanks a lot! The only other mic I have is the SM7B. It works better for this but doesn’t sound nearly as good otherwise. Buying a ribbon is on the list, as is the 902 and Derr-esser, but if so I’d need to sell something.

If it is a vocal thing, I’m thinking about getting 5-10 vocal coach lessons in before summer, while also focusing on it when recording. Might be useful anyway.

I can still also try to redeem it with de-essing. Experiment more with what I have there.

I also think that some newer software EQ allows for independent EQing of transients. Maybe that could be something? Anyone knows a tool that does that well?

Agree! So maybe stepping away from the mic might be worth trying.

I would need to learn to sing louder, or get some additional gain without compressing too much and also not adding noise. Doing some EQ boosts I want anyway might work for that. And some very subtle compression that also provides effective gain increase to go with that.

For that I think my RND MBP would be more useful. It can be tweaked quite precisely, and switch peak vs RMS, feedback vs feedforward etc. Maybe there’s a setting that will bring up a vocal that’s recorded some distance away, but without increasing the transients/consonants. Would that be peak mode rather than RMS? As in gain reducing the transients? Or is it rather just using a faster attack time?

If you see photos of Lana in the studio she's always eating the mic, similar to the Billie Eillish thing, that amplifies mouth noises. The M49V has plenty of low end so you should be good getting some distance from the mic. Try several distances and angles into the mic and see what works best, a new mic might not be even needed.

You can always just automate those t and s sounds out of the way too.

Yeah...me too.

I've been recording in a home studio of some sort for 40 years or so. I think a home studio is an excellent space for a singer/songwriter to hone his/her craft.

You need to be able to see the recording aspect as an extension of the art. Throwing down a few raw tracks and then spending a few weeks building them up, tweaking them and polishing them can be massively rewarding.

Yeah, I've said it more than once. You don't have to wait until you're dead to go to heaven.(Might be a good song title.) But it's heaven on earth here for me.

I would rephrase your question to: why does everyone today have to record themselves? He can get the 'fallout' benefits of hearing his technique problems with an SM57, a $100 interface, and a free DAW. The OP was specifically referring to producing serious recordings that rival the "classics". . He talked about recording them on a high level....referred to the "old classics" - "the production quality they had in those great studios." - "a great and treated room - "huge amounts of money in gear." Why is all that mandatory for a songwriter? Why isn't it merely optional? I am not saying anyone is wrong for choosing to produce their own releasable material start to finish. I am questioning why that is the 'size' that 'fits all'.

The time and money comes out of a single finite budget, so they are reciprocal. Part-timers can divide that time into as many slices as they like, but it is always a division. Never a multiplication. How about graphic design for the album cover? How about video editing? How much is a decent 4k camera? How many extra skills and extra gear do we need to add to a part-timer's 'list' before the Gearspacers will admit there might be a cost to spreading yourself thinner and thinner?

And I can promise him that spending 10 hours a week practicing his instrument will make him a much better musician than spending 5 hours a week practicing his instrument and 5 hours a week practicing his recording engineering skills. I bet his guitar teacher or vocal coach would agree with my view. Trickle-down be damned.

Again, the OP is vague, but I thought it is quite possible that he was actually asking for permission to skip the (now mandatory) 'both' part. Maybe he doesn't really want to 'do both' if his recordings keep coming out sounding to him like "demos"? Anyway 'both' implies only two things. I could count seven things right off the bat: writing, performing, singing, tracking, editing, mixing, mastering. OP also said "One should absolutely do that if the process of it is enjoyable". That "if" looms pretty large to me. I thought he was trying to tell us something there. Maybe I am wrong about the OP specifically, but I am still shocked at how many refuse to even consider there might be someone out there sincerely wanting to "fully pursue writing, performing and creating". Like every musician ever used to do not that many years ago.

Quick, send them to the re-education camps.

It’s useful to have references. There are many one could choose from across the years, but here is one from Kenny Rankin (covering an old Hank Williams tune, House of Gold) before he moved to a close mic aesthetic.

What is particularly instructive to me is the feeling that I would love most any singer songwriter at this distance, whatever this distance was? There is something indisputably honest about it. . .a class act.


Of course, such notions don’t sell records.

Ray H

Yeah, I was thinking about that. My guess is when they were listening to the raw tracks that was not very prominent. And Lana could be long gone by the time it's mixed and mastered. And she would probably know that even as is, nobody but her and a few people on gearspace would notice it. I've seen more than a few people waste a lot of money trying to fix something that really didn't need fixing. And then to top it off they often went back to the first or second take and used that.

5-10 hours a week? That's just a warm up.

You said "the gear," implying all gear, not specifically mics. Yeah I would put mics away when not in use, but that's such an easy thing to do...hardly a reason to avoid building a home studio.

Why do you think living with someone equates to not having a spare room or space to dedicate as a home studio? (Unfortunately, the OP wasn't clear there...)

Obviously. And? That doesn't mean he has any professional aspirations of any kind.

I did emphasize that him being a hobbyist was just a guess on my part.

But I find it odd that you equate "a certain level of ambition" with "professional musician." One can be ambitious to make great music without any such aspirations.

So he did and I guess I glossed over that initially...if that's his stance, it makes the whole thread pointless. Why ask a question in the title of the thread and then answer it in the OP? i.e. why even post it?

And frankly, it's an invalid statement anyway, because it's such a sweeping generalization. Obviously for some, home studios are the ticket; for some they are not.

Clearly you're the one who feels threatened. I could give a flip whether anyone on the planet creates and uses their own home studio or uses a commercial one. If he decides on the latter, yay for him, whatever. Obviously there are pros and cons both ways. I was simply responding to some of your points which I didn't either agree with and/or understand.

Yeah right.

I question whether it's "a lot" of people (which is rather vague anyway), but whatever. Again, the devil's in the details, but generally speaking, yeah, it is relatively cheap to build up a basic home studio, esp when you consider that after the up-front costs, the cost to use it is zero for as long as you want, whereas with a commercial studio, it's $X per hour every hour and that can really add up over time. Does that mean such places should never be considered? Obviously not.