Are We Being to Nitpicky about Recorded Tone?

[ferg]

Originally Posted by RustyAxe

I don't think so. Among acoustic players the "holy grail" is fidelity ... does it sound like the instrument, like MY voice? I think we fret too much over live sound, actually. A live performance is transient, emphemeral. Gone the second it's played. A recording, OTOH, has a permanence, and every effort toward "perfection" is worth the trouble. Of course, there are degrees. I'm not wealthy, and none of my home recordings, no matter how much I put into them will sound like a $500K studio with a proper engineer.

I do agree with the comment about live performances. I think a lot of what we do fret over with live sound, though, is much more for ourselves than for the audience. I think, though, a certain level of fidelity IS important. I decent band with horrible sound, is no more enjoyable to me than a mediocre or even poor band with good sound (though I'm not inclined to stick around for either unless the volume is really low). But you're right - the degree to which we obsess over, in particular, amplified guitar tone is probably overkill for most patrons (and that's been stated before by at least a few on this forum).

I also agree that more care should be taken when doing a recording. That's why I mic my guitars instead of plugging in, and why I use microphones more suitable for recording both vocals and guitars...and do multiple takes, etc, etc. However, I think, even with recording, you get to a point where a minuscule improvement requires a herculean effort (or significant cost).

I would like to point out, though, that I am not a professional. My aim in gigging is to make enough to cover my costs, and, at least, fund consumables such as strings and cables. My goals in recording are to develop something decent enough to distribute to fans for, at most, minimal profit, and perhaps just breaking even. My audience is small enough now, that income is not much of a consideration. If I'm ever successful at changing that, I might change where my Mendoza line for recording effort/cost lies.

[rick-slo]

Ferg, the recording you posted sounds quite good, especially the guitar part. That extra amount you might want could perhaps be done via things post recording. At some point you may want to send off a recording to a good studio and see what they can do with it. Sometimes the difference is small, sometimes it really adds to the recording.

[ferg]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Ferg, the recording you posted sounds quite good, especially the guitar part. That extra amount you might want could perhaps be done via things post recording. At some point you may want to send off a recording to a good studio and see what they can do with it. Sometimes the difference is small, sometimes it really adds to the recording.

Thanks Rick. I had considered this as well. I'm still kind of hashing things out. I've been gradually piecing together things for a CD to sell on the cheap or hand out at gigs, and have thought about sending it off for mastering and/or mixing. There are a number of reputable services that friends of mine have used with good results. Of course, in terms of effort - there's not much here, and the cost is not completely insane either.

[Allman_Fan]

Originally Posted by ferg

My goals in recording are to develop something decent enough to distribute to fans for, at most, minimal profit, and perhaps just breaking even.

If you don't make a profit (are you including your "time" as an expense), then why are you distributing/selling recordings? Do you think it will enhance the size of your audience, the number of gigs or the money you make at gigs?

Or, do you actually enjoy the recording "process?"

[ferg]

Originally Posted by Allman_Fan

If you don't make a profit (are you including your "time" as an expense), then why are you distributing/selling recordings? Do you think it will enhance the size of your audience, the number of gigs or the money you make at gigs?

Or, do you actually enjoy the recording "process?"

I'm not including my time as an expense. I'm talking about literally covering the cost of duplication and, if any, production costs. These are minimal. I buy pre-printed CD-Rs with the band info on it and burn them myself. In the end, the cost ends up being < $2 disc (unless I do ultimately spring for mastering or what have you). I'd probably sell them for $5 and give many away to prospective gig locations and some fans and friends.

I DO enjoy the recording process to a degree, but I also find it somewhat tedious, which is part of what inspired this thread. Mostly, though, it enables me to fully realize some of my songs. I play in an acoustic duo that's just me (guitar and vocals) and percussion, and, frankly, my percussionist is more a buddy than a percussionist, if you know what I mean. Recording allows me to use other instrumentation, multiple guitars and, most importantly, play guitar parts that I cannot do while also singing. So - it's not so much that I enjoy the process, as I enjoy having the song recorded in "full effect".

And, yes - my hope is that the CD will help get gigs, and perhaps get more people to our gigs. Money is not a consideration at this point, but, as gigs get bigger, it stands to reason money will as well. At this point, we've been hired to play private parties as a result of gigs, and that's where we've seen the most payoff. But, really, I'm not trying to capitalize on anything at this point. I just want to play to as many people as possible. I do recognize that, if I'm successful at growing an audience, I would be silly not to try to parlay that into a profit at some point, but it's just not a consideration right now.

[Allman_Fan]

Originally Posted by ferg

At this point, we've been hired to play private parties as a result of gigs, and that's where we've seen the most payoff.

This is what you have achieved as the result of gigs or the result of distributing recordings?

Use the mastering idea the rick-slo proposes as an example:
Will your gigs INCREASE (dollar-wise) by an amount that will equal or exceed the amount you spend on the mastering?

To answer your "nitpicky" question, you may need to realize that you are a more than just a musician/recording engineer . . . you are a distribution executive, as well!

[ferg]

Originally Posted by Allman_Fan

This is what you have achieved as the result of gigs or the result of distributing recordings?

Other than here and there online, I'm not distributing any recordings as of yet, so it's the result of gigs. I guess what I was saying is that my hope is that distributing recordings would lead to more people hearing us which would lead to more of this sort of thing.

Use the mastering idea the rick-slo proposes as an example:
Will your gigs INCREASE (dollar-wise) by an amount that will equal or exceed the amount you spend on the mastering?

Good question. And maybe a better way of working the original post is - What's the point of being nitpicky? If the CD sounds better, will more people listen to it, share it with friends, or what have you? I don't know. I mean...I'm an amateur musician recording in my bedroom. I do think pro mastering might give the CD a more cohesive feel. An entire CD can be done for a few hundred bucks, which means, if it leads to a couple of more paying gigs or parties, then, yes...but would it?

I've always been of the opinion that I'd rather spend money like that on gear that I could use going forward improving all future recordings, but I don't really know. Heck, another option is to use a service like Nashville Tracks, where pro musicians actually record your song in a pro studio and you just do the vocals. It's impressive...but ~$500 / song. Now really, I don't consider 5 or 6K for a professionally recorded CD in a pro studio including pro musicians and engineers a bad deal, but I don't have that kind of scratch, and I kind of want the musical performances to be mine, however lacking they might be.

To answer your "nitpicky" question, you may need to realize that you are a more than just a musician/recording engineer . . . you are a distribution executive, as well!

Great. Like I don't have enough to do.
You raise some great questions. Thanks for chiming in!

[redavide]

The question of whether it's economically worth it to be nitpicky about recorded tone really opens a new can of worms.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by redavide

The question of whether it's economically worth it to be nitpicky about recorded tone really opens a new can of worms.

Well indeed! If one's buying decisions are purely based on perceived ultimate profit he has not caught the recording bug and passion.
I doubt anyone on the forum has made substantial (pay the rent) money, at least during the last few years, from selling their recorded
music. Unless you are a Breatharian, depending on that source of income is not survivable. You have to do gigs, studio work, give lessons, ect.

Those who record at home who have bought more expensive recording gear, moded their recording room, purchased some decent instruments,
are in a pretty deep financial hole as far as recorded music profit and loss goes - but then that has never really been the motivating goal, has it?

[ferg]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Well indeed! If one's buying decisions are purely based on perceived ultimate profit he has not caught the recording bug and passion.

Well I guess this kind of answers the question, at least for me. I have had the recording bug, in a sense, since I started playing guitar. I am passionate about making recordings of my songs. However, I don't have the kind of passion that drives me to create what some would consider *great* recordings, and that's because I don't enjoy the process required to get to that point. I enjoy spending some time on each part of the process. What I don't enjoy is spending 100s of hours mixing or doing take after take after take of something, or recording the same track experimenting with dozens of mic positions. I've whittled things down to the point where I can get a result that is, by and large, pleasing to my ear, and that I'm not at all embarrassed to pass around the internet, to friends, etc, without having to do too much of what I consider tedious.

And maybe that's the thing... at which point does the process become unenjoyable? If the answer is, "never", then, of course, you're going to work until the thing is perfect. Why wouldn't you? It doesn't matter if there are no benefits to others...if you enjoy it, YOU are benefiting just by doing it.

Of course, there's the equipment cost necessary to get there, but the same logic, can sort of apply there. There are financial limits we all have, but there are time limits as well, and how we budget those things are probably guided by how much enjoyment they bring us (and what our spouses will allow).

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by ferg

What's the point of being nitpicky? If the CD sounds better, will more people listen to it, share it with friends, or what have you?

For me, the issue is not that more people will listen to it, it's that I will hear it and I don't want to cringe when I do, even if I'm the only person who ever hears it. I generally think that anything worth doing is worth doing well. I'd turn the question its head: Why create something that isn't the best I can do? There are so many high standards to live up to, and it's tough for a home-recording musician to compete with professional releases, but the least I can do is be picky enough that I'm satisfied that within my abilities, it's the best I can do at this time. And then work to make that better by the next time I do it.

[K-vegas]

Originally Posted by ferg;2516818So

... it makes me wonder...should we even worry about having "great" recordings? I mean, with a decent mic (even with a crappy preamp), and a cheap computer recording interface, you can make a recording that's light years beyond what they had back then. I'm starting to think that if you have:

1) a good song
2) a good performance
3) a decent mix that works for the song

That's really all that should matter.

My first recordings were a collab with an old band mate. We used his gear to record and he did all mixing and such. He would spend hours/days tweaking and retweaking a mix. If I did that now, it would kill my desire to continue. Whenever we discussed online material we heard, I would be commenting on the melody concept or lyrics while normally he was stuck on some EQ or mix issue that he couldn't believe someone would leave as is. You could call him nitpicky I guess.

I truely admire a crystal clean acoustic recording. One day I might be closer to accomplishing that myself. It's just not my main goal nor do I assume that goal on others when I listen to online music. A lot of really cool original songs I've heard were not perfect but still sound very good.

My goal is to produce a clean, balanced recording that delivers to the listener the idea I had in mind when I wrote the song. Anything that distracts from that is redone or tweaked - but no more really. That really is all that matters to me. I'm sure I would approach it differently if I thought I could earn money from my recordings.

Having said that... I am a bit 'nitpicky' on: out of tune guitars, pitchy vocals, and the severe overuse of reverb.

Mark

[denmar355]

Doug, one thing is for sure. You do not have to ever worry about cringe ever again. I think you play, and record, beautifully.

[Ty Ford]

at 128 kbps and above, mp3s can exceed the performance of mass produced audio cassettes.

Regards,

Ty Ford