REALITY CHECK #6: Your Gear Sucks, part II

ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck

-REALITY CHECK # 4: Your Gear Sucks

-REALITY CHECK # 5: You Suck, part II

To be honest, I'm on the verge of beating a dead horse with this post since I've pretty much covered most of the main points in REALITY CHECK numbers 1, 4, and 5; But, in REALITY CHECK #4: Your Gear Sucks, I limited my discussion of gear to the front end (capture). For this post, I'm only going to talk about the tools you use after the audio has entered the computer (processing). This includes plug-ins, outboard hardware, virtual instruments, sample libraries, loops, etc. The first was about recording, this one is about programming, mixing and mastering. For these subjects, I need to address a few issues.

Despite the differences between capture and processing, my point is the same:

You don't have enough varieties of quality equipment to produce radio-ready recordings.

Before I go any further, though, I need to make one point clear: having a limited amount of "okay" gear is only a crippling hindrance in some genres. For example, I believe it's possible to produce a radio-ready instrumental electronica track by working strictly with Logic's stock plug-ins and virtual instruments. In contrast, I think it would be very difficult to produce a really authentic rock song using programmed drums and synth bass...no matter how awesome the sample libraries are. Another example: programming a "realistic" sounding brass quintet piece with sub-par sounds and/or bad technique may be next to impossible, but competently programmed string samples can fool the best of us in a pop context (Sandy Vee used string samples in Katy Perry's "Firework." See Sound on Sound April 2011, p. 133). Examples abound, so take only what may apply to your situation.

Let's jump in.

In a recent Inside Track I noticed that mix engineer Ruadhri Cushnan used the Bomb Factory 1176, the D-verb, and the EQ-III (all stock plug-ins for ProTools) in several instances on "Little Lion Man" by Mumford and Sons (See Sound on Sound March 2011, pp. 142-3). Many folks will point to instances like this and proclaim: "If such-and-such stock plug-in is good enough for so-and-so pro engineer, then it must be high quality enough for me to use in my projects." My response is the dreaded... ...wait for it... ...it depends.

First off, some stock plug-ins don't completely suck. I can usually find a few things that a stock plug-in does great. But if you got the point of the first "Your Gear Sucks" post, you now understand that we're dealing with an issue of quality and quantity (of course, the pros have both, darn it). Stock compressor X may work great on a few sources but suck on others. This is where you'll need access to a cornucopia of compressors so you can appropriately match the compressor to the source. AND, they better be nice compressors. Quality does matter after all. What the stock-plug-ins-are-cool folks failed to mention in their rant was that Mr. Cushnan only used stock plug-ins 20% of the time. 80% of the processing that went into the "Lion Man" mix were were quality plugs from Joe Meek, Oxford, and Audio Ease (in addition to outboard gear by Neve, Summit, and Smart Research). The point is that you need a variety of great gear in order to processes a track in the way it's asking to be processed (assuming that you know what you're doing). Stock plug-ins may do the job, but you better have quality options on hand for when they don't.

Now, to throw an even bigger wrench in the home recording machine, many established mixers have deemed plug-ins unsuitable for important processing tasks. Mixerman recommends quality hardware compressors for the mix bus, hardware effects units for things like reverb, and a summing box for the final mixdown. He'll even print to tape if necessary (see Zen and the Art of Mixing, pp. 170-196). To him, DAWs are a necessary evil and he claims that getting an authentic sound is only possible by moving the signal out-of-the-box and into some analog gear. If this seems excessive, he's not the only one doing it. Notice that Cushnan did it for "Little Lion Man"? For Taylor Swift's Latest album, producer/mixer Justin Niebank used plug-ins from Waves, Sound Toys, Universal Audio, and AVID, but then sent the mix through a Dangerous 2-Bus (analog summing), a quality outboard compressor and EQ, an then onto 1/2-inch tape (see Sound on Sound, February 2011, pp.155-56).

But, that's just for rock, right? Not so. At the recent HRBC Fest in March, 2011, pop mixer Tony Shepperd laid out his hybrid setup, which included outboard reverbs and a summing box. He's not alone. In fact, many pros these days insist that working entirely in-the-box cannot give us the sound we crave. But, before you jump off a cliff (which I almost did after reading the "Gear" portion of Zen and the Art of Mixing), not everyone makes the same claim. Many pop productions are mixed entirely in the box. (Just remember that any "live" signals captured with a mic were probably routed through several pieces of yummy analog gear. See REALITY CHECK #4: Your gear Sucks). I predict that digital technology will eventually satisfy our analog craving and we'll all laugh at the idea of a patch cord. But until that day, many current mixing pros have already gone hybrid because some plug-ins just can't compete with the real deal.

So...depending on the genre you work in, your small selection of cheap gear could be keeping you from producing radio-quality recordings. Here are a list of things that could make your recording sound lame if used inappropriately:

-plug-in guitar tone
-virtual instruments that imitate acoustic instruments through synthesis
-bad sample libraries or great sampled instruments programmed poorly
-plug-in reverb (instead of a cool space, hardware unit, chamber, or re-amp setup)
-plug-in effects (instead of their analog counterparts)
-plug-in processors (EQ, compression, etc.)
-crappy analog gear

Please understand that I don't represent the analog-is-always-better-than-digital camp. There is a lot of crappy analog gear out there, too (make sure to check out David Schober's post: Just Because Something is Analog Doesn't Mean it's Better). I'm just saying that getting the right sound for some genres involves expensive outboard gear. For example, if your indie-rock track needs a Roland Space Echo, the plug-in version might not sound as authentic as the real deal. Even worse, if you need the Space Echo, but only have access to a digital delay and EQ, you're gonna be disappointed when you try to "fake it."

The take away from each REALITY CHECK series is that you should both accept your situation and take baby steps to remedy it. Hoping that you can produce radio-quality tracks with your 5 stock plug-ins is just going to result in tears.

So here's what I recommend, in order of importance:

1) Learn to use the plug-ins you have
Great gear is only as good as the person using it. Go as far as you can with what you have and you'll be justified in upgrading. This involves not just mastery of parameters, but also successful application of a plug-in to a task. If you don't know which of your two compressors works better over the 2-bus, you have homework to do. If you can't program somewhat realistic sounding drums with EZDrummer, then carve out 3 hours and edit velocities and articulations like the rest of us. Upgrading to Superior Drummer won't help you.

2) Decipher which gear is appropriate for each genre
Read, read, read and find out what the mixers/beatmakers/composers/programmers in your genre are using to get their sounds. Then read about what other genres use. Note which processors/instruments are universal and which ones apply to specific genres. Of course, don't limit yourself. By all means experiment. Just be mindful. That melt-your-face guitar distortion might not do well in a jazz context. :-)

3) Get a variety of mid-range plug-ins (processors, virtual instruments, etc.)
Quality is important, but if you still consider yourself a beginner, just recognizing the benefits, drawbacks, and character of a wide variety of plug-ins is more important. Figure out which ones work best for specific tasks. Find excuses to try them out in a variety of situations. This is part of your plug-in education. Really learn their sound. This will help you recognize and appreciate the good stuff once you upgrade. (Hint: besides searching for the plethora of free plug-ins available, I keep my eye on www.audiomidi.com for their "No Brainer" deals.)

4) Get some quality plug-ins (processors, virtual instruments, etc.)

I would get the UAD Satellite or a Waves bundle before I would buy analog gear. Why? A) You get a heck of a lot of great plug-ins for a 1/2 the price of one worthy hardware unit; variety is key; B) Because you'll immediately be amazed how much a great plug-in can sound awesome and make life easier; and C) You'll start to get an idea of the how some of the coveted gear works and sounds. (Just realize that plug-ins modeled after real analog gear may not sound or behave the same!)

Same thing applies to virtual instruments. Once you've gone as far as you can go programming orchestral sounds with Garritan, graduate to Vienna and be amazed. It's also much cheaper than hiring an orchestra. Trust me, I've done the math :-)

5) Get some quality outboard gear
Once you know your stuff, have confidently used the good plug-ins to transform your mixes, and have inherited $50,000 from your rich aunt Sally, then you can decide if getting some analog gear is worth it for you. Try renting a piece of gear first and do some A/B-ing. If your world is rocked, go for it!

The equivalent of "outboard gear" for those who use virtual instruments exclusively is actually hiring a studio to record real musicians. As of today, a talented human trumpet player will always sound better than a programmed part, especially if it's a solo. This means you'll want to consider spending Aunt Sally's inheritance money on hiring pros to play and capture your music. Can't afford an entire string section? Just hire a single violinist to play a layer or two of your string parts. Blend those real performances over the top of your virtual string section to make it sound way more authentic. Not easy, or convenient, or cheap...but hey, you just inherited $50,000 :-)

My Dad always says, "Money can't buy happiness, but it does make life a heck of a lot easier." With music production, the same principal applies. Newer, better, and in many cases, vintage gear won't suddenly transform your work into gold, but it will sound better and it will reduce the amount of time/energy you spend tweaking. Once you have a zebra, you won't have to paint black stripes on that white donkey anymore.

A few more minor points, and then I'll wrap it up...

About Virtual Instruments

Customize your patches! It's cool to start with a patch, but no patch fits perfectly with your song. You need to edit that patch to meet the needs of the track! This can include tweaking parameters in your synth, dialing back the room sound of your drums, and adding effects like distortion, delay, reverb, chorus, etc. Add something original to put your stamp on it. (This advice also applies to processing plug-ins as well.)

Also, avoid cheesy or dated sounding patches at all cost, unless that's the intent. "Cheesy" and "dated" are both relative terms, but you know what I mean. There are a lot of really bad sounding virtual instruments, especially the ones that try to emulate acoustic instruments through synthesis. Yuck! If your song starts sounding like a MIDI karaoke backing track, put on the breaks and start over. Unless, of course, you enjoy hearing the word "amateur" being associated with your creations.

About Loops
You have to be really carefully about using loops in your compositions. First, they better be quality (expertly performed and recorded). Second, you better use as many tricks as possible to hide the fact that they're loops. No contemporary track on the radio just repeats a few bars of drum loop throughout the entire track. Even sample-based rap tracks contain cut up measures, re-arranged sequences, re-organized slices, fills, sudden stops/starts, varieties of groove, etc. A great pop producer is a master at adding as much subtle variety to his loops as possible. Third, you better not use easily recognizable loops. This means GarageBand loops are out, unless it's low-profile ones (percussion, etc.). Fourth, don't even think about using loops for some genres. Looped drums for a traditional blues piece? No way.

In conclusion, this post does not justify your G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome) lust. Many of us who run into production roadblocks wrongly assume that it's the tools instead of the user (see my post RANT: "Due to Human Error"). So, before you run out and buy your coveted piece of gear, I would seriously consider spending that cash on education. But if the competent use of the tools you have is still keeping you from producing radio-quality recordings, a gear upgrade may just be the leg up that you need. My friend considers his questionably-legal acquisition of the Waves Mercury Bundle to be a "game changer." What will be your game changer?


And as always, Enjoy the Ride!

REALITY CHECK #7: You Can't Do It Alone, Unless...


For daily tips and links on songwriting, production, and recording, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro

REALITY CHECK #5: You Suck, part II

ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck
- REALITY CHECK # 4: Your Gear Sucks


Have you ever heard a fantastic recording of a horrible performance? The gut reaction is that the entire thing sucks, recording and all. Some amateur vocalists will pay big money to have a studio record their song(s) using professional musicians. Everything sounds amazing until the American Idol wannabe comes in with their sub-par droning. At that very moment the listener stops hearing a solid recording and starts hearing amateurish crap. Am I not right? Many song samples from local recording studios will sound that way, not because the recordists suck, but because something is lacking in the song that keeps you from appreciating the quality of the recording.

Here is a list of ways to make people assume your recordings suck, even if they're quality:

-Average/horrible sounding instruments
-Average/horrible sounding instrumental performance
-Average/horrible sounding vocalist
-Average/horrible lyrics and/or songwriting
-Average/horrible arrangement
-Average/horrible production values

Seriously, you could be the best recordist ever, but if one of those aspects is lacking in the song, no one's gonna notice how awesome your recording is (except for us audio nerds). Do you think anyone would admire the powerful simplicity of Audioslave's "Like a Stone" if the drum kit sucked, the bass player couldn't groove, and the vocalist wasn't amazing? Nope.

So, what's my point?

Even if you have the recording thing down, your song is not going to sound radio-quality unless you also shine as a performer, songwriter, and producer.

This post is really aimed at the "Renaissance Man" home recordist. In social circles the Renaissance musician is greatly admired for single-handedly using their multiple talents to create musical "masterpieces" from the humble location of his/her bedroom. That's an awesome ability. But in the professional world, rarely does anyone make anything great without the input, advice, help, assistance, or collaboration of several equally talented people.

Let's look at all the elements that go into a great song from start to finish:

-lyrics
-music
-arrangement
-performance
-production
-recording/editing
-mixing
-mastering

For every one of those stages, there is someone who specializes into doing just that:

-lyricist
-composer/songwriter
-arranger
-performer (studio musician)
-producer
-recordist
-mixing engineer
-mastering engineer

Record labels will introduce any of the above into the creative equation to insure that their product will be marketable. Can we compete with multiple specialists?

While I do think it's possible to be great at a few of those categories, I believe that none of us can truly master them all. People who become masters at something usually specialize in only doing that one thing. You know the saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none"? Yes, we might do it all fairly competently, but not at the level where we can actually compete with several experts doing what they do best at each stage of the song process. It's a sobering fact that we all painfully recognize, but don't have the time, connections, or money to do anything about.

I'm not trying to rub it in, but if you've got mad recording skills, have a great room to work in, listen through a decent monitoring situation, and have a fair selection of cool gear, you still need something worthwhile to record! If you can't get that radio-worthy vibe out of your tracks because the song or production is average, I don't think you can blame the recording. Maybe you're just a crappy songwriter/performer/producer? Or rather, maybe you're not an amazing songwriter/performer/producer who's surrounded by lot's of specialist collaborators?

What do we do with this self-deflating information? Like in the first four installments of the REALITY CHECK series, I recommend a mixture of acceptance and baby steps toward progress.

Acceptance

So you can't be an expert at every stage of your project, who cares? Stop pouting and just accept that you're gonna have to involve other people in your creative process. Once I tried to lay down a rip-roaring guitar solo in a song I was writing. FAIL. I swallowed my pride and called a guitarist friend who came over and laid down 3 usable takes in under 10 minutes. To him, the expert, it was no big thing. Even though I had to inconveniently schedule a time for us to track, I probably ended up saving time in the long run. Plus, my song now has a legit solo. Winning! Identify your weakest abilities and stop convincing yourself that you're "good enough." It's that kind of hopeful self-deception that leads to crappy tracks and -more importantly- keeps you from involving the people who can help you. Which leads me to my next point...

Baby Steps: Get Help!

If you want to take your music projects to the next level, you need to make some friends who are experts. Easier said than done, right? Okay, maybe you can't make friends with experts, but you can collaborate with people who are better than you at the things you suck at. In this internet age, friend making is easier than it's ever been. Start a recording meet-up group through Craigslist. Join Music Connection's AMP Network and find like minded folks in your area. Attend your local songwriting group's critique nights. Many of them (in the LA area at least) have industry experts who do the critiquing. Many online groups exist for the same purpose. Check out the Songwriting Lab, where you can get your work critiqued by a host of folks in the songwriting community. You may not get expert advice, but any advice is better than no external input at all. To overcome your blind spots, it's essential to examine a wide variety of perspectives other than yours.

If you want to stop carving the same rut that you've been carving, you're gonna need to get out of your comfort zone. I can't even begin to list all the forums and social networks you can use to meet people who have the skills you need. Don't just post and then retreat back into your cave. Make connections, establish relationships. Turn those virtual relationships into working relationships. Stop staring at your computer and start shaking hands.

Why would anyone want to help you? Because you probably have a skill they need. If you rock at lyrics and music, then hook up with someone who's good at production. You need their production skills and they need your songwriting skills. It's a symbiotic relationship. Beatmakers need rappers just like rappers need beatmakers. Songwriters need performers. Lyricists need composers. Producers need songs to produce. Vocalists need something to sing just like songwriters need vocalists to sing their songs.

The best part of today's virtual environment is that all this mutually beneficial back scratching doesn't have to take place in "real life." If you read recording-type magazines you've undoubtedly come across multiple articles about cross-continental virtual collaborations. Get a free Dropbox account and start sending your tracks back and forth with your Twitter friend in Norway. Why not? Have a New York rapper spit over the beats you made in Nebraska. There's this marvelous thing called the internet. Use it!

If you happen to have a small project budget, places like eSession have been hooking up amateur musicians with industry pros for years. Forget that stupid synth bass patch! Hire a legit bass player to perform and record that slap-pop line that you just can't play...for under $100! Some songwriting veterans like Jason Blume will critique your song for $20-$30. Once you're a member, TAXI gives you a free critique with every submission you make. Go to a Karaoke bar and find a singer who's willing to sing on your track in exchange for $20 and/or a copy of the recording. You'd be amazed how many vocalists want samples to use as resume builders or vanity tracks for their myspace page.

I can't list every resource available, but the 21st-century fact is that we're bursting at the seems with opportunities. Carpe diem!

Remember, this post is not about your recording ability. I addressed that issue in the first post "REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck." However, the music industry also relies on the "many experts" model to insure maximal product value. In other words, there's an expert at every stage of the recording process, too. In the big leagues, the recording engineer is usually different from the mixing engineer, who is different from the mastering engineer (exceptions abound, of course). Each expert works their magic to the synergistic benefit of the whole. Plus you have several other folks checking "quality control"at each stage, typically the producer(s) and record execs.

Soooooo, this means that you should also take advantage of all the real and virtual opportunities to get recording/mixing/mastering critiques, advice, and perspectives other than your own. The first thing that comes to mind is Ian Shepherd's Production Advice service, but many others exist as well. A free option is Recording Review's "Bash This Recording" Forum, where your peers rake you over the coals in the name of improvement.

In summary: you can't do it all expertly and you need help. It doesn't make you less of a person. I bet you can do some things expertly, so now you just need to collaborate with others who can expertly do the things you suck at. Or, just come to terms with where you're at. Many of us don't have the time, energy, desire, or people skills to involve others. That's okay. Just realize that the definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. As long as you're aware that your solo efforts probably won't produce a Billboard chart topper, you're all good. Maybe with a little acceptance, the joy of making music will creep back into your sessions. That would be a good thing.

Enjoy the Ride!

REALITY CHECK #6: Your Gear Sucks, part II

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links on recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro

REALITY CHECK #4: Your Gear Sucks

ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck

The only book I've ever lost sleep over was Mixerman's The Daily Adventures of Mixerman. In many ways, reading that book is what "woke me up" to the gulf that divides the home recordist from the industry pros. At one point, Mixerman needed to put in a gear order for the tracking sessions that lay ahead. After getting the "regardless of cost" go-ahead from the producer he proceeded to rent a vintage Ludwig drum kit (with a few other kits waiting on standby), plus 10 extra snare drums. Uh, hem...That's as far as we need to go.

When was the last time you had the pleasure of recording a vintage Ludwig kit? The last time you recorded drums, how many snare options did you have? One? Maybe two? Did you have a few extra kits lying around in case you needed to change out kit pieces? Never, none, and no.

You probably thought this post was going to be about how your gear sucks and how the pros have way better gear than you. Well, it kind of is. Great gear matters. If you've ever played through a sweet tube amp you already know that. But I'd be willing to guess that you have a nice guitar, or one awesome mic, or perhaps a killer pre-amp...maybe even all 3! So, you're totally ready to make recordings like the pros, right? Sure. But what happens when you need more of a Gibson sound but all you have is a Strat? What if the mic that complements your voice sounds awful on the female vocalist you brought in to track vocals? And, of course you love the coloration from your killer tube pre-amp, but what if you need it to be transparent? Ah, this is where the pros have an advantage over us.

In The Daily Adventures of Mixerman, after Mixerman dials in the drums, he turns to the guitars. He rents a bass head, a bass cab, a few guitar amps, and some guitars. The producer also brought in several of his favorite amps and guitars. Between the guitarist, the producer, and the rental equipment, they set up a wall (literally) of amps (quality amps, from Vox to Mesa Boogie) and had an estimated 50 guitars to choose from. Throughout the sessions, the three spent countless hours auditioning amps, dialing in the right tone, and arguing about the implications of sounding too vintage or too modern.

Contrast that to what we typically do in our home studios: We pick up the only guitar we have, dial in an acceptable (but not fantastic) tone from our combo amp, and mic it up with a single SM57 that's plugged in to a $200 pre-amp/interface. Upon playback is it any wonder why we feel like the guitar tone lacks something?

Now, your situation hopefully is better than this, although it's a fairly common set up for many home-recording folks. And I'm not even suggesting that you couldn't capture a broadcast-quality recording that way (more on that later). My point is that to capture a variety of great sounds on a wide variety of sources, you need to have A) great gear, and B) lots of it.

Great Gear
"Great" gear doesn't necessarily mean expensive gear. Quality gear will usually produce a cleaner recording, so if you got it, use it. But a quality amp might not be what that trashy indie-rock guitar part needs. I'm suggesting that "great gear" is gear that gives you the sound the part needs. The sad news is that the Neumann mic you bought with your child's college money might sound horrible on that glam rock vocalist. So, yes, quality gear is great, but appropriate gear is better. This brings me to my next point...

Lots of Gear
This is where pro studios have an advantage over us home-recording guys. They have lots of quality gear. In other words, they have a variety of sonic options to choose from, which greatly increases their chances of finding just the right sound.

Before I continue, let me qualify what I mean by "gear." There is a debate among home-recording songwriters as to whether they should track a song themselves and then hire someone to mix it... -or- ...should they pay a studio to track the song and then mix it themselves. Usually this question arises among people who are not qualified to neither track nor mix, but that's besides the point. Too many people these days think that DAWs are magic and that you can put crap in and transform it into platinum later. It doesn't work that way. The pros record with the best tools and mix with the best tools. Having said that, a song that has been tracked by a competent engineer using great gear is going to sound awesome in the raw and be far easier to mix. In the March 2011 U.S.A. edition of Sound on Sound, Ruadhri Cushnan talks about mixing the latest Mumford and Sons album. He says :

"In the end, it's about how good your source material is. Some people think everything can be fixed with a good mix, but that's not strictly true. A band playing well, recorded in a good room by a good engineer and a good producer makes the mixing process a lot easier. If the source material is not very good, you're going to have to jump a lot of hurdles during the mix. In the case of Mumford and Sons I was given really well recorded source material with plenty of options, so mixing was fairly easy and the results came out great."

Get it? You can't polish a turd. Spray paint will make it look better, but it's still a turd.

Therefore, for this segment I will only address the gear that assists in capturing a sound, from source up to the computer. I'll address the processing side later in "Your Gear Sucks, part II."

Quantities of Quality Gear
What kinds of quality gear are we talking about? Let's lay out a couple typical signal chains to see what gear shapes a source:

Vocals: Great room > great vocalist > microphone(s) > cable > pre-amp > cable > compressor/limiter > cable > EQ > cable > converters > cable > computer

Guitar: Great room > Great guitarist > Guitar > cable > pedal(s) > cable > pre-amp > cable> power amp > cab > microphone(s) > pre-amp > cable > compressor/limiter > cable > EQ > cable > converters > cable > computer

At every point in a chain, the tracking engineer must audition, select, and combine pieces of gear that will produce the sonic bliss they're looking for. This explains why pro studios have rooms full of vintage guitars/amps/cabs, sought after synths and keyboard instruments, $100,000 mic lockers, racks of coveted analog gear, and why some cables cost more than a trip to Disneyland.

In contrast, a typical home studio signal chain looks like this:

Crappy room > Okay guitarist > Mid-priced Guitar > $10 cable > M-Audio Fast Track interface > computer > guitar modeling software.

For those who have this setup, I'm not making fun of you. However, I am trying to point out the amount of time, expertise, and quality gear that went into capturing the awesome guitar tone on Joe Radio's latest single. Of course you can't get Joe Radio's sound with the above setup. Accepting that fact might just keep you from pulling out your hair thinking you can transform a Hyundai into a Ferrari with some minor body work.

Remember, the point of the REALITY CHECK series is to point out why many home recordists can't make radio-quality recordings. Crappy gear is only one reason. And it's on the low side of importance compared to the other points I've written about and will write about. Many of you are to able to crank out pretty awesome recordings with only a modest variety of decent gear. Awesome! Many of you have no need for quantities of quality gear because you're only interested in recording in one genre. As long as you don't need your Marshall stack to sound like a Fender Twin, you're set. Many of you do electronica and/or MIDI and have no need of the kind of gear I've been talking about. Lucky you! (Although, hard-core synth-heads will continue their quest to acquire every analog synth known to man). However, many of you use loops and samples for drums, orchestral instruments, voices, etc. All of what I'm talking about in this post has already been done for you. But I have more to say about the quality of samples/loops, and I need to address programming and aesthetic issues. I'll talk about all that in a later post.

One warning: more and better gear may not be what you need to improve your recordings. Many people "upgrade" because they mistakenly think that a $2,000 outboard compressor is going to solve all their compression problems. It will sound great, no debate. But if you don't know how to edit the parameters according to the needs of the signal, you're better off spending your money on Joe Gilder's Understanding Compression videos. (Plus, if you've been paying attention, you really need several nice compressors to choose from. Cha-ching!) Gear Acquisition Syndrome (G.A.S.) often strikes when the problem has nothing to do with gear. I'd be willing to bet that you need more education...not more gear.

The take-away for this week's entry is the same as the others: You can accept your limitations and/or take steps to improve your situation. Let's say you know what you're doing, work in a great room, and have a decent monitoring situation. If you can't get radio-quality recordings you may want to consider which piece(s) of gear you need to improve your input. But before you head over to http://www.sweetwater.com, I'd wait until I'm done with the REALITY CHECK series. There are several more posts that reveal limitations more devistating than having crappy gear. And you thought I was about to give you permission to satisfy your gear lust. ;-)

Enjoy the ride!

Special thanks to @Gilligan204 at for fact checking and making suggestions on portions of this post.

REALITY CHECK #5: You Suck, part II

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips on recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro

REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck

ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
----------------------------------------------

Let's face it, your monitors probably suck, and sucky monitors can keep you from making broadcast quality recordings. But I wish upgrading to an expensive pair of monitors would elevate you to recordist extraordinaire. Unfortunately, the problem is bigger than that. I should have titled this post "Your Monitoring Situation Sucks" because there are several things to consider when addressing the monitoring issue.

You Get What You Pay For
I don't think I've ever met an owner of an inexpensive compact car who complains that their vehicle can't compete with a Ferrari on the race track. So why do we complain when we can't get our mixes to sound right with our 4" entry-level monitors? In Mixerman's book Zen and the Art of Mixing he recommends that people pay $1,500+ for a pair of 6"-8" nearfields. Out of your budget? Yup. So, how can you compete? Your $300 monitors sound...well...like $300 monitors. They're probably misrepresenting the audio coming out of them. And if you're making bass-heavy music, they aren't capable of reproducing that 30-50Hz low end that you crave. If you can't hear it, how are you supposed to carry out mix decisions confidently? Both major roadblocks to achieving broadcast quality recordings.

Your Room Is As Important as Your Monitors
If your room sucks, you're still gonna have issues working with even the best pair of monitors. Your monitors are only as good as your room, so the room must sound great before a quality monitor can start helping you. See REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks.

Knowing Your Monitors Is Essential
In Zen and the Art of Mixing Mixerman says, "All you need to understand is how your monitors respond in your room and how that translates outside of your room" (p. 167). Now, he's not advocating mixing with junk monitors, but this is where people with mid-level monitors can actually make decent recordings. If you can "learn" your monitors and your room, you can actually work around some of the deficits of both. It can be a pain in the butt, but it is possible. However, the major roadblock to attaining this level of knowledge and understanding is...well...YOU. Remember my first post: "You Suck"? Many of us self-taught home recordists don't know what it means to learn a pair of monitors. Even if we did, it can take years to finally achieve this ninja ability. And let's say you win the lottery today and the first thing you buy is a pair of Gold-Mach 500 Pro-Mixer Series 8" diamond studded monitors. There still is a learning curve that needs to be addressed. If you can't, you're screwed.

Multiple References Are Needed
Let's take a peak at a pro studio for a moment. They have at least 3 pairs of quality monitoring options: "bigs," midfields, and nearfields. (I'm not gonna explain what each of those are because I really think you should read the section on monitoring from Mixerman's Zen and the Art of Mixing.) For a home studio this is overkill, but my point is that one reference is usually not enough. A second pair of monitors will offer another perspective on your mix, which will increase the chances of that mix translating on a variety of playback systems outside the studio. Mixerman talks about switching between top quality 6"-8" nearfields and 10"-15" midfields to reach a compromise on certain mix decisions. Many of us have two sets of monitors, but switching between a $300 pair of 5" CoolBrands and a $50 pair of computer speakers won't provide the same results. It can be done, but it's gonna take a lot more work.

In summary, bad monitors, bad room, inexperience/inability, and no secondary reference monitors all combine to make a quadruple whammy in our ability to crank out broadcast quality recordings. The good news is that it's not impossible...just really annoying.

So, what can you do? If you haven't already figured it out, this series is about either coming to terms with your situation and celebrating where you're at, or taking baby steps toward improving your situation. I recommend doing both. The advice for improving your monitoring situation isn't unlike the advice I gave for dealing with a bad room. Check your mixes on as many references as you can. When your mix "translates" well on a boombox, over earbuds, in your car, and in the living room, you've probably got it dialed in. If not, make adjustments until you do.

The best thing you can do is "learn" how your monitors sound in your room. Import a bunch of your favorite CD-quality files into your DAW and have a listening party from the mix position. Just observe. Listen to all the frequency ranges to see how they react. Is the low end boomy or does it disappear? Is the high end shrill or does it sound like it's being rolled off? Take notes. Play a wide variety of genres. If you do this enough, you should be able to recognize what sticks out in your track that shouldn't.

Another great technique for learning your room/monitors is to keep a few broadcast quality reference songs in your session while you're mixing. If you're unsure just how much midrange to boost, for example, flip over to the genre-similar track and see what it's doing. Ignore loudness (if you can) and focus on balance and blend. Ask specific questions about your mix and find specific answers from the reference mixes. Tweak your mix until it has similar characteristics to the pro mix. Just remember that the pro mix you're comparing with has been mastered. Try to discern what mastering has done and ignore those aspects of the pro mix. Then try to anticipate how mastering will change your mix and pretend it has those characteristics. Good luck with that! :-)

I haven't mentioned proper placement of the monitors in your room, the equilateral triangle of listening bliss, decoupling the monitors from your desk, avoiding desk reflections, working with subs, or anything like that. There's lots of info on the interwebs about the proper care and feeding of monitors. Do the research. Every minor adjustment that improves your monitoring will payback in the mix arena. A fun place to start is Overdub
vol. 1: A Guide to Studio Monitors put out by M-Audio.

Finally, if anyone has experience with the room analysis kits like the KRK Ergo or IK Multimedia ARC, please leave a comment. Love? Hate? Indifferent? What's the verdict?

And as always, enjoy the ride!


REALITY CHECK #4: Your Gear Sucks

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links on songwriting, recording, music production:@CreateMusicPro

REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks

(ATTENTION: This post may seem a little out of context if you haven't already read the REALITY CHECK series Introduction or the first entry, REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck. I recommend reading both before continuing.)

Your room sucks, but I'm sure you've already raised your fists in the air over this frustrating realization. If you're recording with mics, or playing back through speakers (duh), your room puts its sonic imprint on everything you do. If your room doesn't sound good, it's gonna be really hard to make radio-quality recordings.

Your room sucks for two reasons: 1) Space, and 2) Acoustics.

1) Space.
Have you ever been to a real recording studio? The big ones have multiple tracking rooms with matching control rooms, both of which have been designed by acousticians or at least people who know their stuff. The goal of a great tracking room is to sound amazing while offering maximum flexibility in the kind of imprint you want to add to whatever sound source you're capturing. They usually have an open, somewhat reflective "live" room for tracking performances, with portable absorption options (gobos, baffling, acoustic treatment) to help control just how live it sounds. This room is usually flanked by several isolation booths or rooms designed to capture much drier performances and to offer...well...isolation from whatever's going down in the live room.

Your room is probably 10' x 12' (if you're lucky), was designed by an architect for humans to sleep in, offers little or no options as to how dry or wet you want it to sound, and sucks acoustically. Maybe you've slapped up some Auralex foam, have a packing blanket or two, and perhaps even an isolation box. Big whoop. My point is that your room probably sounds bad and gives you zero options as to the kind or amount of room tone you'd like to capture. I bet you can produce a few radio-quality recordings from your room if it sounds halfway decent, but your hands are tied if you need a different sound than what your room is capable of producing.

2) Acoustics.
If you're an electronica or MIDI composer, you probably don't care too much about my first point. But if you're playing back your songs through speakers into a room, then no one is immune to this fact: a room "colors" your sound for good or for evil. If you're playing back into an evil room, how are you supposed to produce radio-quality sounds?

Back to the pro studio for a moment. A sweet control room has been designed or treated by an expert to offer a fairly neutral playback environment. This means that when a song comes out of the speakers, the sounds aren't bouncing around the room in an adverse way. Poor, untreated spaces cause all sorts of frequency dips and peaks at the listening position. This makes the receiver think they're hearing something they're not. If your room misrepresents the audio coming out of the monitors, you're going to have a heck of a time trying to mix a radio-quality track, especially when it comes to getting the low end you desire.

Your room is probably too small, too evenly shaped, and probably has no proper sound absorption. Haphazardly throwing up foam, "egg crates," or -gasp- carpeting the entire space will NOT transform your room into a listening paradise. Think about all the money, thought, and expertise that goes into a major-label control room. Frankly, you just don't have the time, cash, expertise, or space necessary to create an ideal listening environment.

So, what is the outcome of the sucky room double whammy?:

With a crappy tracking and playback environment, it's going to be really difficult to capture, process, and mix radio-quality audio.

Notice I didn't say impossible. Most of us will discover workarounds for our room limitations...really annoying workarounds. With the advent of fairly decent portable recording devices, it's theoretically possible to capture any sound source in any environment. (In fact, @RonanCMurphy just spoke on this subject at the HRBC Recording Fest, 2011.) And, actually, you can improve a bad playback environment somewhat with a little knowledge and some cash. Resources like the monthly "Studio S.O.S" series in Sound on Sound magazine can help you get a grasp on some of the most common issues and how to address them. There are tons of book-type reference materials on studio acoustics. I'm excited about @BobbyOwsinski's newly released Studio Builder's Handbook. The bummer is that no amount of DIY knowledge is going to trump expert knowledge. It's not uncommon for the Sound on Sound team to pull out old acoustic treatment because it was doing more harm than good.

For those of us who cannot afford a roam overhaul, the most common workaround for a bad tracking environment is to...well...make the best of a bad situation. Realistically, though, accepting that a bad tracking room could keep you from contending with radio tracks may be the only "solution" until you can change/improve your room situation.

The poor man's workaround for a bad playback environment is to check mixes on multiple systems: iPods, computer speakers, car systems, home entertainment systems, boom boxes, etc. Make notes on your impressions from each environment and then go back and try to implement the needed changes into your mix. Repeat until you have a decent mix. The problem is that by Mix #11 you're ready to set fire to your studio. Can you imagine being in a room that you could trust? Well, that's the advantage that the hit makers have over you.

If you're frustrated about working in a crappy room, you have one of four options: 1) Violent takeover a major label studio, 2) Expensive overhaul of your existing space, 3) Quit recording forever, or 4) Accept that the less-than-stellar room you're working in is a contributing factor to you not being able to produce radio-quality music.

Choosing 4) is not as bad as you think. You're probably doing a decent job of recording/mixing despite a bad room situation. Yes, the drums you captured in a 10' x 10' carpeted space are gonna sound lifeless compared to the sweet ambiance of a professional live room. No, adding reverb will never compare the authentic vibe of a great-sounding natural space. Yes, getting an accurate image of your low end is going to be darn near impossible in a walk-in-closet. But option 1) is illegal, option 2) is expensive, and option 3) is stupid. My advice: choose 4), deal with it, and enjoy the ride!

REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links to all things recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro

REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck

(ATTENTION: If you haven't already read the introduction to the REALITY CHECK series, this post may feel a little out of context. Get the backstory here: http://createmusictips.blogspot.com/2011/03/reality-check-series-intro.html)

You suck, and I mean that in the most loving way possible. :-) Of course you don't suck. You're actually probably half way decent at recording. But that's not my point. My point is that the audio engineers who make hit records have WAY more knowledge and experience than you. Ask yourself the following questions:

-Have you been recording since you were 14?

-Did you go to school for recording?

-Did you endure a 1-2 year internship in a recording studio?

-Do you record daily for 60+ hours a week?

-Have you been recording professionally for the last 25 years?

People! these are the guys that make platinum selling recordings. Then why, oh, why do we become frustrated when we can't produce broadcast-quality recordings from our home studios with only 2-3 years experience under our belts? Do you see how insane that expectation is?

My point: Many of you who have been recording for only a short time ARE capable of producing tracks that are pretty fricken close to being radio-quality. That's awesome! So, stop beating yourself up about falling 10-15% short of your goal. You will keep getting better and better with persistent effort over time.

Now, if you're ready to upgrade your recording skills, it's time to get more experience and knowledge. We all read books and magazines on recording. We all watch tutorials and read blogs. We all experiment with techniques that we're unfamiliar with. We all attend conference-type events. Great! Keep doing that DAILY for the rest of your life.

But, if you want to improve exponentially, you must realize that experience trumps book smarts any day. Increase the amount of time you spend recording. Sign up for intimate recording workshops like @RonanCMurphy's Home-Recording Boot Camp. Take courses at a nearby college. Pay a local engineer their regular rate to help you through a mix. Get one-to-one assistance on the things that stump you the most from someone who has more experience than you.

The most effective way to gain experience is through a long-term apprentice-type opportunity with veterans of the industry. This may not be realistic given your job/school/family commitments, so think local. Offer to assist at your friend's studio on larger projects. Look into internships at a local studio. Do whatever you can to regularly bump elbows with those better than you. Get out of your studio and into the trenches!

If that's not realistic for you, well…I hate to say it…but don't whine when your track sounds like a gramophone recording compared to the singles on the radio. It's no secret: you don't have the experience or knowledge necessary to produce a radio-quality recording. However, if you accept that that's where you're at despite your lack of knowledge and experience, then maybe you can pat yourself on the back for the progress you've made thus far. Heck, your recordings probably sound better than many indie records made in the '90s. That's pretty cool.

Enjoy the ride!

REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links on all things songwriting, recording, and music production: @CreateMusicPro