To begin with, there are many things that you cannot do in a home studio.
A competent recording of a live band - still the mainstay of the recording industry - is usually impossible in your bedroom. Fitting an orchestra in there is also challenging.
And even though the topic of this piece is whether award-winning (i.e., Grammy) music can be conceived, recorded and mastered in a home studio, there’s nothing to indicate that any such recordings actually have been.
What is possible theoretically is not always possible in practice.
That being said, however, amazing things can be done in home studios, and it’s an interesting topic for recording enthusiasts to ponder.
Can all of the semi-pro equipment that promises great results actually deliver a recording that rivals the “majors”?
A Bit Of History
Making a record used to be a complex task, requiring engineering by highly trained technicians using specialized equipment in a large, dedicated facility.
There were also many other people involved, each with a specific contribution made to the process. Musicians, vocalists, songwriters, arrangers, producers, publishers and engineers all had their own areas of expertise; each did a job and that job only.
As the business matured, these jobs started to blend, and recording technology also advanced. The equipment became smaller, cheaper and less complicated to operate.
By around the mid-1970s, it was possible and practical for recording artists to purchase home versions of professional recording equipment in order to produce and record themselves as well.
In the last 20 or so years, the wide availability of low-cost, high-quality digital recording technology has greatly narrowed the price and performance gap between pro gear and semi-pro demo making tools.
There has been the rapid, massive evolution of the digital audio workstations as a primary recording medium.
Further, it’s now possible for anyone with a computer, whether used mainly for word processing or surfing the Internet or whatever, to access the same technology that professional recording engineers, producers and artists currently use.
But back to the intriguing question: Is it possible for someone to actually record a award-winning product with a desktop, laptop, or any other currently available type of dedicated home recording device?
Let’s put it all into perspective. I contacted some of the most respected engineers in the industry, all of whom have worked on award-honored projects of their own, to get their thoughts on this topic.
After all, they should know what makes a great recording.
Ed Cherney
GRAMMY® and TEC Award-wining engineer/producer Ed Cherney works in all genres of music; the only common denominator among his diverse credits is quality.
.
As a recording engineer and or mixer, he’s worked with - to name just a few - artists from Bette Midler, Bonnie Raitt, Wynonna and Poe to Jackson Browne, Keb’Mo, Bob Dylan, and the Rolling Stones.
“Yes, GRAMMY projects can be done in project studios, if you have a nut behind the wheel who knows how to drive,” Cherney said. “The one thing I’ve noticed, though, are a lot of really great computer and software manipulators that edit, tune and fix, but have very little knowledge about good audio, never having the opportunity to listen to music through Class A gear, great acoustical spaces and great microphones.
“And don’t forget that most contemporary music projects are conceived in home studios and then maybe expanded in commercial facilities.”
George Massenburg
George Massenburg’s engineering and producing credits include Billy Joel, Kenny Loggins, Journey, Madeleine Peyroux, James Taylor, Randy Newman, Lyle Lovett, Aaron Neville, Little Feat, Michael Ruff, Tot, The Dixie Chicks, Mary Chapin Carpenter and Linda Ronstadt, among many others.
.
“Of course you can make a recording of a terrific piece of music anywhere, anytime,” Massenburg stated. “To the degree that you as an artist/writer are unprepared, insecure, unready, unclear on the concept, unenlightened, unimaginative, lazy and/or uncommitted, you may need more technology, groovier decor, bigger crews and other artificial supports to prop you up.”
David Hewitt
Hewitt owns and operates Remote Recording Services, and besides being a GRAMMY winner, he has done things like engineering for the Concert for America in Madison Square Garden, Woodstock 1999 and the 2002 Academy Awards.
.
“Can you make a GRAMMY-winning recording at home? Sure, as long as you use my mobile recording truck!” Hewitt remarked with a laugh. “Seriously, it’s really all about the music, artist, and the song; if it’s a worthy piece of work, why not?
“It could be done. Not to underestimate good engineering and good equipment, though. We have recorded albums at people’s homes with our truck. We did an Aerosmith album that way.”
“In the late 1970s, for Jackson Browne’s Running on Empty, Greg Ladanyi and I recorded it using the old Record Plant remote white truck for all the stage shows on the tour, but some of the songs were done on a four-track in hotel rooms along the way, and one was even recorded on a two-track in the back of a bus somewhere in New Jersey, with cardboard boxes used as overdubs for the snare and bass drums!”
What’s The Difference?
I believe that most people would rather hear a great song, with a killer performance - even if it had a sound quality that was less than state of the art - instead of a badly performed, horrible piece of drivel that is “slick” sounding and well recorded.
If that’s the case, will there be any difference in the sound quality if a very talented artist records his or her new album at home rather than at a big studio, especially if the material is just as good as it was on the last record, and the same producer and same engineer are employed?
The software the artist owns is the exact same program and version that the big studio has. Does the hard drive on the studio’s computer sound better than the hard drive on the artist’s computer?
In the digital world, data is data, after all. Does a document on one computer read any differently than that same document on any other, assuming everything is working correctly?
So, is there any difference between the sound quality the talented artist will get if making the record at home as opposed to recording it in a very expensive studio?
Theoretically, the answer is no, but in practice, things are not always so simple - especially in the recording world.
Remember, in my little example all the personnel are skilled, talented and very good at what they do. And so are the arrangements, players, productions, material, etc.
The Input Signal
Things start to differ a bit when we get to the actual sounds that are being recorded.
First and foremost on my list is the quality of the input signal.
I like to explain this concept by using a lowly little audiocassette (remember those?) for my example. If you carefully transfer what you feel is the best sounding recording you have ever heard to that cassette, then play back the cassette copy, a semi-faithful reproduction of the original recording will be heard.
There may be some added noise, distortion or signal coloration, but there will be a definite aural signature of the quality of the original signal.
In other words, if you record something you think is the best sounding, most professional, sonically perfect example of high-quality sound you’ve ever heard on to a cassette, it will sound very much like the original on playback, except for any noise and/or distortion that the cassette may impart on the signal.
However, if you then stick a little telephone answering machine microphone into that same cassette deck, and record yourself saying “Testing 1, 2, 3; How now, brown cow?” into that mic, anyone and everyone who hears it will be able to tell that the recording was made using a cheap mic plugged into the cassette machine.
That lowly little cassette still has the ability to allow the best sounding recording ever made to be distinguished from the homemade, cheap mic recording.
So, in a digital recording environment, which is supposed to be an uncolored neutral medium, people making recordings must make sure they have the highest quality input signal - even though it can be altered after the fact - so as to get the sound/image they want printed with the best quality, or, at least, with the quality that is desired.
What I’m saying is that while your recording gear will do a professional job of recording what you put into it, you must do a professional job on the front end in getting that sound.
And that’s where the big studios can’t be beat.
The Big Studio Advantage
Where the big studio has another advantage is in the quality of the mics, preamps, equalizers, compressors etc., that they own.
To help get that input signal to sound its best, the big studio is usually second to none.
Accordingly there are many more choices than the artist would have at home. Plus, there is a difference of literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in the total worth of that equipment, compared to what the artist might own.
Still, if the artist chooses one very good front end for the home system, with a sound that he or she loves, then there is a good possibility that the sound of the big studio can be approximated for that artist.
But there will not be as many choices, variations, or options available at home.
One factor that can help home studio owners is to use samples.
.
To the artist’s advantage, these samples are usually made in big studios using high-quality equipment.
This further levels the playing field, because if these sames are used, the quality would be identical to that of when the samples were made in the larger facility.
Monitoring
Next of my list of things to get the home studio closer to the big studio is accurate, trustworthy monitoring, which is crucially important.
The trend that most engineers and producers follow for monitoring is to shy away from the large monitor speakers in a studio, and instead use smaller, near field systems that are found in many facilities and that can be easily carried around.
These speakers are much smaller, and very affordable, which is another element in the artist’s favor when planning his or her project/home studio.
In the last several years, self-powered near field monitors have gotten very popular, and because the power amp is built into the speaker, once again it will be the same one, whether used in the studio or at home.
However, no one will try to argue that the sound you get out of a near field system in your bedroom can equal an $80,000 system in a well designed acoustical space, which brings us to…
Acoustics
As far as having a nice large recording room with high ceilings that is acoustically tuned, with isolation booths, and controlled reflections and reverberation, the big studio will always have the advantage.
That is, unless the artist lives in an old former church or similar structure, or has spent a fortune treating the room.
However, because many instruments are recorded direct, and a space for recording vocals or a single instrument can be designed in a spare bedroom, it is less of a problem than it would be if trying to record an orchestra at home.
Finding a good place at home for your control room is a sticky challenge. Standing waves, bass build-up, high-frequency absorption, reflections of sound off the mixer or computer all have to be dealt with.
What you’re trying to do is to get an accurate sound in the room, which will let the mixes translate well on other systems. This is not always possible in a room at your house.
Fortunately, there is a lot of literature and information on the subject, and quite a few companies have come out with products that allow one to quite reasonably treat the room with baffles, diffusers and bass traps.
When the room is “tuned” for the best response, recording, mixing and monitoring there becomes a trustworthy process, and the artist can rely upon the sounds being heard and mixes being done as accurate and true.
The Final Consideration
Finally, there is mastering. Most big studios send their product out to dedicated mastering houses for the final finishing touches. No one will argue about the sterling quality of the world’s best mastering houses.
If you want your project done right 100 percent of the time, that’s where it should go.
.
However, more and more project studios do desktop mastering to go with their desktop recording. The software tools can do a surprisingly decent job, and many home studio owners find that they can master projects to their own satisfaction.
Yet the fact remains that home-mastered projects can suffer from a lack of good monitoring, and more often suffer from a lack of good sense on the part of the person doing the mastering.
There’s a reason that pro mastering engineers do a professional job, and it’s because they know what they’re doing, in addition to having the best tools.
In the end, the project studio is best for people who have a good foundation in recording and know what they want.
It is a technological marvel that so much can be done in a bedroom studio, but the major studios serve a crucial purpose and always will.
Bob Buontempo has more than 30 years of professional recording experience, and has been the president/owner of Buontempo Entertainment Services since 1976. He has also taught numerous recording and audio educational courses over the years. Bob offers special thanks to Ed Cherney, George Massenburg and David Hewitt for their contributions to this article.
Return to article