Equipment you need for a complete studio job

Ha ha very funny!

I’m afraid that I take what nowadays seems like an old fashioned view that I am aiming for the highest possible quality of sound. (Not that I always succeed!) Which kind of rules out iTunes, other than as an afterthought. If you mix and master for MP3’s or any other compressed medium you are asking for trouble. Mix to 24 bit, master to 16 bit 44.1 and then consider mp3,s etc.

Also some of your points if serious are pretty contentious, where I can understand them. I am wondering if you have used Google Translate?

“You will need good monitor that will show up errors- not quite as important. They do not sound as good as a good stereo speakers but if it comes out good and clear at all max volume then it should whale on regular stereo speakers. I personally cannot use biggest monitors because my ears get blown at highest volume. Monitors should take a proportion of even concert big speakers in performance. It should be approx. same level of vibe up and distort at max volume.”

Specialist monitor speakers are often far better than hifi speakers for listening to a mix, as good ones are designed to be very revealing and tell you things about the musical balance and tonality and reveal negative issues. A good monitor is not about size or volume but about accuracy. This can get very complicated as the room that you use also has a bearing on the accuracy of sound and will often need to have acoustic treatment. It took me a long time to sort out my room and control the bass before I could be confident that that what I was listening to was accurate and would translate into a mix.Big speakers are fine, but they can use a big room. My hifi uses a pair of large floor-standers, but the listening room is 8 meters long and can cope with them. By this I mean the volume you have to have them to be working the speakers properly needs a larger room. In my much smaller studio these speakers would be impossible. Larger speakers demand to be driven harder than smaller speakers.The larger the cone the more energy/power is needed to overcome the mechanical inertia.Which is why most project studios use smaller nearfield monitors. The smaller nearfields can be less good at reproducing low frequency sounds, which can be assisted with a sub woofer. It is not about loudness but how revealing the monitor is.

@OP - Kidding, or just naive?

I can’t imagine any of it made any sense in it’s original language, let alone after google mangle-ate!

:confused: :astonished: :open_mouth: :confused::wink: :slight_smile: :smiley: :laughing: :mrgreen:

Apparently all of his posts are written pretty much in the “Death to Syntax” style popularized in the early 1980s by Roland’s manual writers. Some of those manuals competed on a comedic level with the National Lampoon.

Some people have a way with words…some not have way.

It’s either someone on a wind up or, i think more likely translation software…
Definitely reminds me of some of the more amusing badly translated manuals you get from time to time…

some good ones here…
http://www.engrish.com/category/instructions/

Why has someone posted their high school homework? Do they want us to mark it? :laughing:

I too am an advocate of the DAW way system, but I believe it can be done on a DAWsole!

Dear OP,

I sometimes read your posts, but they are very difficult to comprehend. I think this is caused by the use of a translation tool, which makes your postings mostly unreadable.

I suggest you keep it to smaller texts, so that your tool will have a better chance of translating what you want to say.

Another option would be to have someone else proofread your postings (or to take a course of English locally).

I do not want to get on your case and ridicule your language, I do appreciate your efforts. I just think it is a waste of my (and your time) in the current form.

Cheers!

Nicely put!

+1

Ooh come on, most of us are experienced, I guess when a beginner is reading it, it would help them a little.

I’m not a native english speaking dude myself, but it matters if you read your contribution more then twice and correct if needed (I know I do :slight_smile: )

The only problem is that he is trying to convince “The World” that you can outrun a professional commercial studio with a computer in your bedroom.

At least is what it sounds like. And THAT will NOT help anyone IMO.

PS. I think it’s a “prank” post (or dare I say tråll) :wink:

love that. :laughing:




In all honesty there’s no reason that a bedroom cant compete with a recording studio which is one of the reasons why they’ve been going out of business for the last 10 years. You get far more flexibility in a studio, but you’ve got time in you’re own studio, or bedroom. There are somethings such as ensembles or drums that still absolutely require a studio, but for the most part project studios can compete. A bedroom can have rockwool panels, nice monitors and quality pre’s…

We’ve got office space which is kitted out as a studio, and we’re recording two albums in a great studio down the street from us in March for TV work. - It’s a real toss up however what we’ll record here and what we’ll record there. They got a great live room and a great selection of mics. However we can take the time to get amazing takes here with one or two quality mics in a treated room.

Maybe watching the puremix from Andrew Scheps mixing Ziggy Marley’s Fly Rasta will give you some insight.
This mixing session is available in 2 versions, out of the box with SSL table and lot’s of outboard gear and the second one purely in the box with protools and lot’s of plugins.

Countless hits are mixed in the box, so it still ain’t the tools but the man behind the tools which makes this possible!

links:
1: http://www.puremix.net/video/andrew-scheps-mixing-fly-rasta-in-the-box.html
2: http://www.puremix.net/video/andrew-scheps-mixing-fly-rasta-out-of-the-box.html

Could someone please explain to me what the purpose and/or Intention of the original post was/is?

Is it:
a) the daw-studio enthusiast’s new bible?
b) a question?
c) a Statement of personal opinion?
d) the hope for replies?
e) the verbal Eruption of a dopepressured emotional vulcano?

Please help.

Ernst

E…but now serious…I do not know!

I think the OP tries to make a point for old skool studio’s.

delusions of grandeur with a chronic case of verbal diarrhea. the first few unintelligeable novelettes were somewhat amusing. the continuation ad nauseum now borders on chaotic spam. the first rule of any good bs’r. dont believe your own hype.

Well there’s something I can agree on. No amount of fancy production can make something bad sound good. You can’t polish a turd.

Um, did anyone report this? Though it is entertaining. Though also confusing. And likely poor advice to those who can translate… Though…

Though did I say entertaining? And one more time: ‘Though’…

Vague will be my next ‘rant’ word.


:smiley: