Slashdot Mirror
The Incredible Shrinking Recording Studio
what_the_frell writes "Wired has an interesting article on the increased use of laptops as a replacement for a recording studio. The article touches on how music schools are requiring the purchase of a Powerbook and software for this very reason, and also highlights artists like Steve Vai who are moving over to the more portable platform. Does this mean I can finally record that rock opera I've always dreamed about?"
I've been doing PC-based recording for some time now using digital equipment that doesn't cost very much. My mixer and recorder are my PC, as are many of my instruments. You can now do stuff with a $1,000 PC that you used to need a $20,000 console to do. And it's only going to get cheaper, as the laptop angle implies.
It's a pretty good time to be a music creator.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
Heh, this is cool, as I am about to pluck down $2,200 for a Digi 002 and run it off my PowerBook 17" Eventually, within the next few months I'll probably be upgrading to the Control|24, as I like to have more than just 4 mic pres... and well, the idea of having 16 Focusrite pre's really gets me drooling.
I've been into home recording for almost 10 years, and have been pretty weary of going the PC-route, in that I've always thought of it as being "toy-ish" but now, with Digidesign getting into the more project studio market, its getting more "professional." This migration to PC-based production has been slow for me, in that right now (pre-Pro Tools) I am just doing "mastering" on my PowerBook (via T-Racks), but I've really become a believer in this PC production thing... especially when you have gear that is lacking.
sad robot making broken music
If you thought hauling around a portable studio in a laptop was pretty cool, there are already recording devices from the likes of Fostex and Korg that incorporate four- and eight-track multitrack recorders into handheld packages. About the only thing that keeps these things from getting smaller is the size of the jacks required to get audio in to and out of the device.
With CF and MMC media becoming smaller and cheaper, to the point where you can now get 256MB for less than $50, combined with advanced adaptive audio compression techniques like MP3 and MP4, are going to make these things as powerful as a Sonar-equipped laptop in a couple years' time. I like to take it with me when I go to shows or open-mic nights and get a 'hard copy', so to speak, of my performances. If I like them, the quality is high enough that with a little mastering compression, EQ and reverb, I've got an instant live recording.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
I work on a fairly tight budget, so my software of choice is FruityStudio (just go to fruitystudio.com). It's not very flexible in some respects, but it honors almost all the industry-standard plugins for audio and I've been able to do some really wonderful things with it. Cheap, too: the full version of the product is only $99.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
Notes for those who wish to do similar: the sound quality of the cheapest sound card you can buy at a music store is better than the sound quality of the most expensive sound card at the computer store. The music store cards will be meant for sound reproduction, where as the ones from the computer store will be meant for sound production.
Using a laptop studio is not exactly new. For computer studio news, you should check out the Computer Music magazine. If you buy it in a newsstand you get a CD with lots of free studio and synthesizer software.
:-(
They also have an old article about laptop studios here. While using a laptop is cool, using a fast desktop system brings you considerably more power for your $$$. For serious music production, you need lots of performance, a large screen, and a good soundcard. All of which is more expensive when using a laptop.
Too bad this is one area where Linux is seriously behind Win or Mac
)9TSS
I have an all digital home studio, with a multitrack, Mac, synths etc etc. I love the freedom it affords me to make music how I like and when I like. However, if I were putting together a big album project, I would still use a studio for at least some bits. Here's why...
1, You have a nice acoustic space for recording "real" instruments, like Drums, Guitars etc with nice mics (Neumann, AKG, B&K etc)
2, You don't have potential noise abatement issues like you would in an apartment. If I want to crank up that 'ol Mesa Boogie amp, it's much easier in a studio.
3, Studios usually have great monitoring systems and outboard equipment. The rooms are also designed to listen to music in, as opposed to the perfectly rectangular study in my abode. No standing waves!!!
4, You have the expertise of a sound engineer. This has enormous value, IMHO.
All these new tools are wonderful, and I make as much use of them as possible. They don't, however, replace experience and plain old skill. I didn't start playing with my own gear until I had been in a few recording studios and saw how it was done. I do love the fact that the entry cost of recording has come down dramatically with the advent of DAW's (Digital Audio Workstation).
I'd like you to listen sometime to the difference between well mixed computer produced music and poorly mixed, poorly sequenced computer produced music. It is UNCANNY. The former is a seamless creation which allows each instrument to express itself without overpowering the others, while the latter can be quite horrible. Just ask my buddy, whose lack of skill in using Protools lead to the downfall of his studio venture after only three sessions. Not that I mind, I got his effects boxes when he liquidated ;).
It is a fallacy that using better tools eliminates the need for skilled labor. What you're talking about is nothing more than an advanced form of recording, which artists have been doing since the advent of a four track. "Professional" recording, getting the music into an editor, is only the first step of making a "recording" of a song. The talents that make a great audio recording technician -- the ability to turn recorded audio into something that is meaningful when played back by muting overpowering sounds, enhancing important sounds, and seamlessly combining multiple takes -- do not appear merely because your soundboard is a digital. It is a skill that has a MASSIVE impact on the end product. Take a listen sometime to an unmixed digital demo and compare it to a studio version of the same song. They won't sound anything NEAR the same, and the difference can be the killing point of an album. My favorite band, the Screaming Trees, released an album mixed by Chris Cornell that was mixed completely wrong. The songs were better written and performed than those on their commercial "success" Sweet Oblivion, but the grunge dynamics did not play well, and killed the sound for a mass market.
However, the simplicity of LEARNING the new digital tools means that a lot of people who would be very good at old style mixing are getting the chance to hone their skills without going to school for them. That's the real promise of cheap, uniquitous audio: it allows the amateur to try his hand at musical skills that are otherwise reserved for $100/hour technicians. And perhaps new "bare bones" styles of production will be adopted, resulting in the end of overproduced albums (like last year's Audioslave disc, check out the "Civillian" demos for some REAL rock & roll).
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Well, I'm late to the discussion as usual, but hopefully this comment still gets seen by those that need to see it.
/. about how it is now possible to build your own home recording studio on the cheap ($10,000 gets bandied about often). While this is certainly true, I'd like to point out that this doesn't mean professional recording can be done by the masses, just that amature recording is much more affordable.
There's an awful lot of talk on
My friend is a professional sound engineer. The stuff he does just can't be replicated by a cheap computer program or a $10,000 setup. He has built several different sound rooms in which he records bands, each at enormous expense. He's got one room that is covered in egg shell-like foam that seems to kill sound the second you step into the room (at a cost of $10,000 just for the special foam I believe). Another room has special wood on the walls and floor to simulate a different recording environment (again, very expensive).
Then there's the Mics. Even a single pro mic runs in the thousands. Don't think a little sound blaster mic plugged into your sound card is going to give you the same type of results.
All of this is without considering the fact that he's a trained sound engineer while Joe Homeuser is probably not. Since most people probably will say that they could do it themselves, let me try to provide an analogy here: the pro sound engineer is like a Java programmer who is an expert in their field, while the home amateur recorder is the equivalent of someone who's just read "learn Java in 21 days." To someone who doesn't know anything about programming at all they probably won't see much of a difference, but within the field the difference would be easily spotted. For a band trying to move past the "garage" image and pose themselves as professionals, it's worth considering this.
I think my friend bills around $80/hour now. At that rate you could probably record a few songs professionally for less than $5000. That seems like a pretty small amount of money in the grand scheme of things.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan