4 ms·
myname: You are correct. To get a "studio-quality" recording, you'll need lots of expensive equipment. But you've obviously missed the idea: the gap between w
by far33d 20y ago
myname: You are correct. To get a "studio-quality" recording, you'll need lots of expensive equipment.
But you've obviously missed the idea: the gap between what you can make with mediocre equipment and top-notch equipment is closing fast. In the old days, you needed good mics because analog equipment needed high quality input. With digital processing and recording, you can get close with a mic that costs $200 (which, if you had a good marketplace for borrowing/sharing equipment, you might only pay $5 for the weekend).
- domp 20y agoYeah I'm with far33d. To make a "great album" doesn't take that much money. I bet only a small percentage of people could tell the difference between a good basement recording and a real nice studio.
- mynameishere 20y ago"In the old days," No. In the old days, home equipment had one track, and studio equipment had one track. Sgt. Pepper was recorded on a 4-track--what distinquished them were the things that you just can't get in your garage: Studio-quality accoustics, a vast array of equipment, world-class instruments and studio musicians, producers, arrangers, etc. Yeah, if you want to be the next White Stripes, okay, maybe you can pull it off. But then you aren't dealing with "great albums" by any measure. Sorry about all this; it just bugs me when people think things come cheap when they don't.