OCEANROCK STUDIOS new website

[Cloud]

christ so ure saying 1000 pound for 3 songs?

Didn't MMW spend somewhere in that region for each of their EP's?

Better to spend the money and get it right than do it on the cheap and sound the same as everyone else, imo..

[Ollie]

when we recorded at chem19 earlier this year we did 6 songs over 3 days' date=' i guess it depends on the method of recording, and the instrumentation of the band/any additional overdubs you want to put in.[/quote']

i do like my overdubs like, takes me agesssss to be satisfied with a song.

[MTA]

Thats what takes the time

[RF Scott]

It'd probably also depend on whether or not you want your recordings to sound really polished. Not everyone wants/suits their recordings sounding like a stadium rock band.

[MTA]

It wont sound Stadium Rock if done well. I will just be your band sounding really tight and ready for airplay.

[RF Scott]

That was kind of what I was getting at - not every band suits "ready for airplay" production (Pavement's "Slanted and Enchanted" is one example off the top of my head), so it'd be something to consider before splashing out on big recording time

[MTA]

That's why the band should have input to the result's. It makes the Engineer/Producers life easy if they just do what they want without listening to the band's. Every band is different so require a different mix style.

[RF Scott]

Exactly! But what I'm saying is that if you can achieve the sound and quality of recording you desire by doing it on your own or in a cheaper studio, there's no point in going to a more expensive place to achieve the same desired sound. I'm not trying to sound like Steve Albini or anything, I'm just trying to offer some advice to Ollie, that advice being that you should consider how you want the recordings to sound, and if there's a cheaper or easier way to achieve that desired sound, then by all means go for that option. I'm just saying that he has a number of options rather than the only other suggestions on here, which was to spend 1000 or so on three songs.

[MTA]

900 for 3 songs is to record and mix to a very high standard the way the band want to sound. It can be done cheeper but without the same quality.

[RF Scott]

You're missing my point - what I'm saying is that you should consider what you want your recordings to sound like - if you want them to sound of a very high studio quality like you're suggesting then by all means spend the money and do it, but there are other ways of recordings songs which can sound just as, maybe more, nice and interesting. For example, from what I can remember, Saturday Looks Good To Me's album "All Our Summer Songs" was a collection of 4/8 track tape recordings, but sound great and are interesting at the same time. SO to sum up - there are various ways - both technically and financially - to record songs, different methods suiting different bands/artists, so its something to consider before going straight for an expensive studio (expensive in terms of the actual money you'd have to spend, I'm not suggesting the studios mentioned are overpriced). I wasn't trying to have a go or come across as being a lo-fi purist, believe me I'm not, i was merely offering some advice to a friend when he requested it.

[Hog]

My problem is that I want my band to sound like this-

http://www.hevydevy.com/mp3/Canada.mp3

Probably having to sell my house to pay for the squillions of layers hehe

[RF Scott]

My problem is that I want my band to sound like this-

http://www.hevydevy.com/mp3/Canada.mp3

Probably having to sell my house to pay for the squillions of layers hehe

Although I don't like the work of Devin Townshend one bit, he is another example of the other options of recording. As far as I'm aware he records ( or has recorded ) numerous albums in the cramped basement of his house.

[Hog]

Although I don't like the work of Devin Townshend one bit' date=' he is another example of the other options of recording. As far as I'm aware he records ( or has recorded ) numerous albums in the cramped basement of his house.[/quote']

Drums recorded at Greenhouse studios (Aerosmith, Motley Crue, Jay Z etc)

Guitars recorded in Devs Bedroom

Vocals recorded in his cellar (which is a little studio)

Samples- Took 2 months and were all from a hand held dictaphone

So yep, certainly one of the many options that Clive was talking about. From a top Canadian studio to a bassment. Mixed it all together and hey presto

[Jimmy Lucifer]

900 for 3 songs is to record and mix to a very high standard the way the band want to sound. It can be done cheeper but without the same quality.

Radio Lucifer recorded 3 songs for 75 last year at Exile at it sounded pretty much exactly how we wanted it to.. I reckon as long as the songs are rehearsed and tight and you've discussed how it needs to sound before hand, even with the most basic studio set up you can get good results. There's no way on earth I'd fork over 900 for three songs.

[MTA]

It isnt 900 for 3 songs. That is for 3 days at a really good studio. what you do in that time is your choice! But I would say if you want the best result you need to spend more time on it. If you wanted to do 30 song's you could but I could not produce the same quality finish in that time.

[Flash@TMB]

It strikes me that some people here suffer from an apparent comprehension deficiency.

Recording is all about signal to noise ratio. The higher the ratio the more information you get and the less noise. By more information I mean greater fidelity - the music is more faithful to how it was intended to sound. That's why 10Ks worth a reverb or 45K worth of desk does a superior job to the buget stuff. And that level of reproduction has to be available at EVERY stage in the process. A studio is only as good as it's weakest component. When Mark refers to polish he does NOT mean Mutt Lange style 'Back in Black' production sound. He means that the recording sounds like you took the time and effort to have it sounding it's best, and that is true of any recording regardless of the sound you're aiming for.

There also seems to be a great deal of ignorance as to what an engineer/producer actually does. Some basic research will reveal that they are more than just people who know how to work the equipment that you want to use. Might be worth reading about this before spouting off.

It's also amusing that people assume they can competently mix stuff at home on a PC. For EXACLY the same reason that a good quality powerful valve amp head sounds better than some cheap transistor crap, that 45K worth of analogue desk with lovingly crafted preamps is going to sound way better than someone's Dell. Way better.

And kidding yourself that a shit sound with a poor S:N ration suits your band or your material is like kidding yourself that people will think you're a better lay because you have BO and your breath stinks.

Any studio can churn out 10 tracks in 10 hours at a cost of 250. It just won't sound as good as if they spent 10 hours on just one track. And that is a fact. So you pays your money and tackes your choice. Mark's advice is that it would be prudent to spend more money on less tracks. Let's face it very few band out there have 10 killer tracks. And of course the better the equipment, the better the engineer, and the more your spent on less track time, the better the result will sound. And sooner or later you reach the point of dimishing returns relative to your ears, your average fans HiFi, and your wallet. Whether that be 25 or 250,000.

[oceanrockstudios]

OCEANROCK STUDIOS speaks !!!

Hello again!

Thanks to MTA for putting forward the producers' view. My view from OCEANROCK STUDIOS is that the most important thing in a studio are the artists talent in their performance.You could spend thousands on London studio time with phenomenal equipment, but if there is no spark in the song, it aint worth it!! Am interested in the Devin Townsend approach, his albums have an amazing sound for a low tech studio, so it is all about the combination of the artists and the producers talent.

That is why 75 spent at Exile can be of far more value than 1000 pounds at another studio - if the quality is there, it will be captured !!. And I guess Dave Grohls home studio has managed to capture a good sound...

OCEANROCK STUDIOS is an open plan combined live and control room where musicians are doing overdubs while looking at Protools filling up the 17" flat panel screens. Producing should never be a black art from behind the glass!! We record everything digitally apart from voice and occasionally drums, but once a drummer hears how Roland V-Drums sound on the recording they are hooked !!.

So, if there are any of you out there who want to use a studio where you can come straight in and start real recording straight away then give us a call. Or check out the website www.oceanrockstudios.co.uk.

Cheers

Nathan

[RF Scott]

It strikes me that some people here suffer from an apparent comprehension deficiency.

Recording is all about signal to noise ratio. The higher the ratio the more information you get and the less noise. By more information I mean greater fidelity - the music is more faithful to how it was intended to sound. That's why 10Ks worth a reverb or 45K worth of desk does a superior job to the buget stuff. And that level of reproduction has to be available at EVERY stage in the process. A studio is only as good as it's weakest component. When Mark refers to polish he does NOT mean Mutt Lange style 'Back in Black' production sound. He means that the recording sounds like you took the time and effort to have it sounding it's best' date=' and that is true of any recording regardless of the sound you're aiming for.

There also seems to be a great deal of ignorance as to what an engineer/producer actually does. Some basic research will reveal that they are more than just people who know how to work the equipment that you want to use. Might be worth reading about this before spouting off.

It's also amusing that people assume they can competently mix stuff at home on a PC. For EXACLY the same reason that a good quality powerful valve amp head sounds better than some cheap transistor crap, that 45K worth of analogue desk with lovingly crafted preamps is going to sound way better than someone's Dell. Way better.

[b']And kidding yourself that a shit sound with a poor S:N ration suits your band or your material is like kidding yourself that people will think you're a better lay because you have BO and your breath stinks.

Any studio can churn out 10 tracks in 10 hours at a cost of 250. It just won't sound as good as if they spent 10 hours on just one track. And that is a fact. So you pays your money and tackes your choice. Mark's advice is that it would be prudent to spend more money on less tracks. Let's face it very few band out there have 10 killer tracks. And of course the better the equipment, the better the engineer, and the more your spent on less track time, the better the result will sound. And sooner or later you reach the point of dimishing returns relative to your ears, your average fans HiFi, and your wallet. Whether that be 25 or 250,000.

Yeah you're right, thats exactly the same thing.

[Chris]

It wont sound Stadium Rock if done well. I will just be your band sounding really tight and ready for airplay.

You can get a good sound for a lot less than a grand. The recent politk (copy_haho) and Dedalus EP sounds just as good as any other CD in my car's CD player (which I gather is the same test Andy Wallace uses to see if a mix is good) and as far as i know neither band spent a grand on their tracks for the CD. Politik recorded their tracks at gav's (masamune) home and Dedalus recorded at Exile

[oceanrockstudios]

Thanks to Chris and CliveRavensby from OCEANROCK

Guys, thanks for adding voices of reason to the debate about recording costs. We cannot scare young musicians off by saying that good recordings are "mega expensive" .

I have a good analogy ( is that how u spell it?). Imagine two young car drivers have to get to a gig in Aberdeen from Banchory. One is offered the hire of a Ferrari at 500 a day and the other offered a VW Golf at 100. Do they both get to Aberdeen? - Yes. Is the quality of the experience the same - Yes because the important thing is to get to the show and not how flash the car is.

My point is that the important thing is to write good songs, capture the magic of the artists and get the CDs to the audience or the MP3 to them over the web !!

At OCEANROCK STUDIOS, we can record low-fi or hi-fi, 11Khz or 96 Khz, 8 bit up to 24 bit. If it sounds good, then we have done our job. If it sounds bad, then we have failed.

And if the bands have a lot of fun during the process and end up with recordings they can be proud of and their fans like it, then that is fantastic !!

Cheers

Nathan

If interesetd in our studio, check us out at www.oceanrockstudios.co.uk

[Flash@TMB]

You can get a good sound for a lot less than a grand. The recent politk (copy_haho) and Dedalus EP sounds just as good as any other CD in my car's CD player (which I gather is the same test Andy Wallace uses to see if a mix is good) and as far as i know neither band spent a grand on their tracks for the CD. Politik recorded their tracks at gav's (masamune) home and Dedalus recorded at Exile

He didn't say you couldn't. We've gotten people a good sound for 40 quid, and some people think that it is comparible to big studio recordings (it isn't). But more accurate equipment and more time spent would improve things.

It's always surprising how people fail to take into account the performance of their stereo. Not every car is fitted with the same stereo! When I listen to stuff on the stereo on my 15 year old Toyota Hi-Lux it all sounds equally good... which is just an indication of how shit my stereo is!

***

This is why I dispise MP3 players. Yeah they're perfect for some portable listening or uploading a sample track to the Internet, but please don't tell me they sound good. What is the point on using 24 bit digital recording at 96KHz sample rates and mics with incredible responses to get a really good S:N ratio, only to go chucking 90% of the information away LMAO!

Arguably the hardest thing to record and mix is real drums. By using sampled drums you instantly get a very good S:N ratio and you don't need to screw with them in terms of EQ, gates or compression. This is why budget studios prefer sampled drums.

We're working with real drums in a live environment. If Mark spends 4 hours on a track then the chances are that 2 1/2 - 3 of those are on the drums! He could just send the drum tracks as input triggers to a sampler (which is exactly what many budget studios do)... but that would be cheating!

This is not a rant against sampled drums. I agree they can sound amazing! But it's questionable whether someone that plays through a real drumkit, should be using samples when they go to record. Sampled drums are a good option for bands that are on a tight budget. And of course they are perfect for any bands that already make use of them as an intrinsic part of their sound.

My point is that while it is possible to get a perfectly decent recording on a budget, it is wrong to say that cheaper=better. That's like me pretending that my 1970 Mini was the best car in the whole wide world when really it was the best car that I could afford at them time.

These hugely expensive desks, compressors, gates, and reverb units, microphones etc all exist for a very good reason! They produce very accurate recordings that are extremely faithful to the original source. They do not introduce unwanted noise. Noise is not the same thing a distortion. Distortion is a semi-controlled mutilation of the sound, noise is just random crap that shouldn't be there. It's like the difference between getting your tongue pierced and replacing your tongue with a slice of chopped pork

Listen to a really good recording, with the sound of the original source instruments, on a really hi-fidelity system, and it's like the band is playing in your living room, with no PA just the sound of their instruments and voices. That's what is meant by polish. If someone honestly believes they can achieve this with cheap equipment and mix it in a few minutes on their PC at home, then they:

A) have a hearing problem

B) are delusional

C) their HiFi is a piece of crap

D) more that likely all of the above

The memebers of some bands that baulk at spending more than 100 on a track wouldn't think twice about taking their 25 each and spending it on clothes, a hairdo, a meal, scoring some blow, or going to a concert in Glasgowl. What does that say about their commitment?

[Flash@TMB]

I have a good analogy ( is that how u spell it?). Imagine two young car drivers have to get to a gig in Aberdeen from Banchory. One is offered the hire of a Ferrari at 500 a day and the other offered a VW Golf at 100. Do they both get to Aberdeen? - Yes. Is the quality of the experience the same - Yes because the important thing is to get to the show and not how flash the car is.

What are you talking about? That is so ill considered it doesn't even qualify as an analogue.

How about this instead...

Let's say two young male virgins both decide to try and form a relationship with the opposite sex. One of them invests a lot of time and effort in making female friends, going to the gym to keep himself in good shape, spending his wages on clothes, hairstyle etc. Goes out to places where he might meet someone with similar interests, and when he finally does he spends weeks wooing her.

The other dude goes down the harbour and has the one legged hooker blow him for 20.

Are they both still virgins? No.

BTW this was meant to illustrate just how easy it is to construct a completely irrelevant analogy. It has nothing whatseover to do with real life, music, or my views on how to relate to the opposite sex.

[Neil]

This is why I dispise MP3 players. Yeah they're perfect for some portable listening or uploading a sample track to the Internet' date=' but please don't tell me they sound good. What is the point on using 24 bit digital recording at 96KHz sample rates and mics with incredible responses to get a really good S:N ratio, only to go chucking 90% of the information away LMAO!

[/quote']

But that is exactly the point - and why listening to your newly recorded tracks in a car stereo will give you a more realistic idea of what your recording is going to sound like to the vast majority of people who will end up listening to the finished product. Listening to the same recordings in your top-notch recording studio will sound infinitely better but this isn't what most people are going to hear.

The fact is people do have cheap and nasty hi-fi equipment, sound cards, headphones, MP3 players and speakers. Most people can't even tell the difference between a 128Kbps encoded MP3 and the original track on CD. So how are they ever going to tell the difference between a 24bit and 16bit recording? They aren't - so is it worth paying more money for that better quality recording? I guess that is up to the bands and musicians to decide.

[Flash@TMB]

But that is exactly the point - and why listening to your newly recorded tracks in a car stereo will give you a more realistic idea of what your recording is going to sound like to the vast majority of people who will end up listening to the finished product. Listening to the same recordings in your top-notch recording studio will sound infinitely better but this isn't what most people are going to hear.

The fact is people do have cheap and nasty hi-fi equipment' date=' sound cards, headphones, MP3 players and speakers. Most people can't even tell the difference between a 128Kbps encoded MP3 and the original track on CD. So how are they ever going to tell the difference between a 24bit and 16bit recording? They aren't - so is it worth paying more money for that better quality recording? I guess that is up to the bands and musicians to decide.[/quote']

Yes the average punter will unable to discern the difference on a casual listen... But I wouldn't necessarily class that as a good thing.

Is it possible to make recordings of a quality comparible to the major studios, but with much poorer quality equipment, and in a much shorter timescale? No.

After living and breathing this subject for the past 3 years I would encourage anyone to listen more keenly because they won't be dissapointed.

Can it really be the case, that there are so many talented people frequenting this website, who love making music, and spend hours every week practising, yet aren't really that fussed about the end result?

[Jim Stax]

Can it really be the case' date=' that there are so many talented people frequenting this website, who love making music, and spend hours every week practising, yet aren't really that fussd about the end result?[/quote']

Probabaly, have you heard some of the bands?!

Only kidding by the by... Couldn't let it pass...