[atlantaprog] Re: Recording

Brian wrote:
> Agreed on all points. I have to wonder though, how much you've spent on all 
> your recording gear: computer, mics, preamps, cables, outboard gear, etc. 
> Then amortize that over >all the recording you've done with it and are likely 
> to do in the future. In my experience the cost per song can actually come out 
> cheaper with a midrange 3rd-party studio. Of >course that's neglecting the 
> DIY advantages of unlimited time and greater control...
 
 
Yeah... that's a point I usually try not to think about! ;)  Honestly though I 
think I've done OK cost-wise.  Mostly by just recording a LOT of stuff.  And 
the point about unlimited time/greater control really favors DIY recording, at 
least in my experience.
 
 
Jeff wrote:
> Maybe, but I don't think that makes great sound a "false" goal, just > not 
> the *first* one. I'd rather hear those things *than a great > record of a 
> tune that sucked*, yes, but if there were some way of > cleaning up those old 
> recordings, I'd be all for it.
 
"False" may have been overstating it on my part.  You put it more succinctly.  
It's not ever the first thing I'm after -- although that doesn't mean it isn't 
a consideration.
 
 
Jeff also wrote:
>Lots of people don't  seem to understand how little you need to make a good 
>recording of > *some* sort, if you're willing to live within certain 
>limitations. > Just think of all those old classical orchestral records that 
>were > recorded with three mikes above the conductor's head--the prime > 
>expense was probably paying all the players.
That's more what I lean towards these days.  I have to live with the 
limitations of home recording, so I work within those bounds.  
But that doesn't mean the recording will end up "bad".  Especially if the 
performance is great.
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec

Other related posts: