The other thing that got me a bit rankled is that I generally despise the idea of awards for media productions. We make recordings for various reasons but few of us are out to "win an award." Heck, most folks I talk to would be really happy if they could just get their audio to sound more professional. Who cares about an award? And my last word on awards and home studios is to point out how many major non-home studio recordings there are that have not won awards.

OK. Now that I've got that out of my system, let talk about the article.

First, the author, Bob Buontempo, specifies what he means by "award" (or at least level of award) when he says "i.e. - Grammy." He's talking specifically about music and not spoken-word/voice-over work. And he's talking really prestigious, world-stage awards. That narrows things down a bit.

Next, he suggests that his definition of a home studio is "everything is in the spare bedroom," because he states that it would be improbable to win a Grammy because you can't fit a whole band (and that's debatable) or an entire orchestra into a bedroom. Well, when you so narrowly define "home studio," you make it much less likely for a recording made that way to be capable of winning a Grammy.

However, as the article goes on, there are suggestions that under the right circumstances, it is absolutely possible for a home studio recording to achieve Grammy caliber. It mostly comes down to the performance and the song. After that, it comes down to the knowledge of the engineer.

Yes, it is a fact that a large commercial recording studio is going to have more gear options, and that gear is likely to cost a LOT more than the typical home studio is likely to ever be able to afford. Also it is a fact that most recording and listening spaces in large commercial studios will have superior acoustics, which makes for more accurate mixing and better mastering.

Oh, yeah - the mastering thing. The author did not specify whether a home recording that is sent to a professional mastering facility counts as "a recording made in a home studio." It should. Even the big studios send mixes to separate mastering facilities.

And this, for me, is the elephant in the room. Take 100 people off the street. Heck, even make them music loving people. Then ask them to listen and tell you the difference between a 24-bit/192KHz recording and a 16-bit/44.1KHz recording, and I would wager they could not tell you. I'd even be willing to bet most of them could not say which was an mp3 if you threw that into the mix! The purist may argue that the difference would be noticeable when played on a super high-end audio system. Maybe. But then what percentage of the music-consuming public are listening to high-definition music on high-end systems. A very tiny fraction.

So though on paper, the audio created in a home recording studio cannot, by the specs, go head-to-head with the major studio recordings, at the end of the day I say "so what?" People listening to music don't look at specs. They listen to music. And the specs mean nothing if the recordings sound good. And recordings made in home studios are perfectly capable of sounding good.

Now for my final take on this question - do most recordings that people make in their home studios sound as good as the pros? In my experience they absolutely do not. That is because the gear is so affordable and anyone can get it now. That means there are thousands of people making home recordings with gear they don't know how to use. I've said this many times - people with no audio knowledge, but with a million dollars worth of equipment can (and usually do) make crappy recordings if they know what they are doing. However, someone who DOES know what they are doing can make awesomely professional sounding recordings with a few hundred dollars worth of gear. It's about the knowledge. One other thing I also say is that you can get that knowledge on Home Brew Audio. We make the daunting techno-jargon easy to understand so you can make great - even award-winning audio - in your home studio.

Cheers!

Ken

BTW, the original article is here: http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/can_grammy_winning_recordings_be_made_in_a_home_studio/

It starts with the idea of pre-recording prep. The first item talks about making sure your instruments sound good. That means that guitars are tuned, not only to themselves and to a correct reference pitch, but to any other instruments that will be used. those include other guitars, basses, pianos, etc. I can relate to this one very well. My latest client often ends up playing my guitar rather than his own, and we have wasted time trying to get my instrument tuned when I didn't do it before the session.

The checklist goes on to list other tips such as testing and/or replacing drum heads, warming up the singer, checking amps for hum and buzz, etc.

To the list the author provides in the article, I humbly suggest you add the following things:

- Have the computer on and the recording software already open.

- Set up the mic stands with the mics already on them and cables all ready to plug in.

- Have some snacks and water ready for the talent - and for the engineer;).

- Make sure the recording software program is set up to record the kind of session you're planning. For example, sometimes I use different interfaces for various reasons, and I find my program (usually Reaper) does not have the current interface (the one I want to use for the session) selected. This can be confusing and cause a big delay if you're not careful to check it before hand.

Check out the full article here: http://www.audio-issues.com/recording-tips/simple-recording-tips/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AudioIssues+%28Audio+Issues%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

I typically record all my audio into Reaper, an outstanding multi-track recording program that rivals Pro Tools for a fraction of the cost. With music, and with move complex voice-over projects, I'll do all my mixing in Reaper. For voice-over jobs that require multiple parts - say a conversation between two or more people or a series of phrases that need exactly 3 seconds between them (I have done a lot of both types of jobs), Reaper is the tool I use to get everything in the right order and sounding good.

But after I create a single file by mixing it all down in Reaper ("rendering"), I open that single file in a different program - an audio editor - to do the final polish. Some folks consider this overkill, since so much can be done from within Reaper. But coming from a music recording background, I'm used to mastering my mixed-down/rendered audio. And to do that I use a separate audio recording software type called and audio editor. In my case, I use Adobe Audition. But there are much more affordable editors out there.

So once I open the rendered, "almost-finished" audio in my editor, I put the headphones on so I can hear every little breath, click, pop, etc. My primary tool within Adobe Audition for this is called the "Mute" tool (which is also available in the free audio editor called Audacity, BTW, called the "Silence" tool). This tool removes all audio in a selected area, which is different from "deleting it!" If you delete the audio, you also delete that section of time. Silencing leaves the time alone, simply making it audio-free time.go through the audio, selecting breaths, and then silencing them with that silence tool.

Anyway, I actually /mute silence all the sections between phrases to get rid of extraneous little noises that become audible when there is no vocal, including lots of the breaths. It works really well, and its fast.

Heed this warning though. A lot of breaths are just part of the way we speak, especially the breaths before a phrase (both my wife and I tend to put a little exhale or quick intake of breath sound at the end of our phrases. Most of these get silenced out. But many of the breaths that come before a phrase get left in, since people are used to hearing people breathe before they talk.

One more warning - if you silence most of the space between phrases, the start of a pre-phrase breath may be cut off. THAT will make the breath sound unnatural. You can fix that problem either by making sure the section you select for silencing does not include the start of the breath. Or you can use the "fade-in" tool if the start of a breath gets cut off. Creating a fade-in makes it sound natural again.

I hope this helps you get much better-sounding voice recordings!

By the way, the Audio Daily Blog post I referred to at the beginning of this article is here: http://blogs.voices.com/audiodaily/2013/05/6_tips_for_removing_breaths.html

The primary cause of poor audio on talking-head videos is that there is too much distance between the speaker and the microphone. Combine that with the fact that a lot of web video is shot with camcorders, or even mobile devices now, using only the built-in mics, which are usually not designed for great audio. If you toss in a common 3rd element to most videos, the fact that the recording room or other space is not acoustically ideal, then you have a recipe for poor audio on you videos.

The solution for two of the root-causes

If you can somehow close the distance between your mouth and the microphone, you can hugely improve or even eliminate two of the problems I mentioned: the far-away sound and the poor acoustics sound. The reason for the latter is that the closer a mic is to your mouth (in most cases), the less of the ambient sound the microphone picks up. This makes the voice sound more immediate and clear. So the solution is to get the mic close to your mouth. Within a foot or two is optimal.

If your video camera has an external microphone input jack, you can plug a microphone into that. Many folks use lapel mics that clip to their clothing, putting it very close to the mouth. Another way to do this is to hold the mic close to your lips, as you've seen many a TV news reporter do.

Shotgun Mic

If you don't want a microphone in your shot, you can do like they do in the movies. That is to put a microphone on a boom stand, or held by and audio guy with a boom pole, just a couple of feet over and away from the speaker's face, just out-of-frame. Movies and TV shows typically use a specific kind of mic for this, called a shotgun mic. I did a review on a popular shotgun mic called the Sennheiser MKH 416, which you can see (and hear) here: Sennheiser MKH 416 Shotgun Microphone Review.

A popular alternative to shotgun mics, especially when shooting indoor video, is a small-diaphragm condenser mic (for a review of what that means, see our article What Are The Different Types of Microphones?). Sometimes these mics are called "pencil" microphones. For indoor shoots, pencil mics are usually less sensitive to room echo than shotguns.

So getting a decent microphone close to your mouth is the single best thing you can do to improve the audio on your videos. But what if you don't have an external mic jack on your video camera? Most camcorders don't have seem to have them, if my shopping experience is anything to go by. Well if your camera cannot accept a microphone, you still have options. In fact your best option is to once again look to the folks making the TV shows and movies. Record the audio completely independent of the video.

Shure SM81 Pencil Mic

If you have a computer in the room you're using to record the video, you can use that, along with an audio recording interface. The one I used in the video below is the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. I just plugged my pencil mic (Shure SM81) into the interface, which plugs into my computer via USB, and put the mic on a boom stand just out of frame.

The pencil-mic-into-an-audio-recording-interface combo can cost a few hundred dollars at least. So if you're on a tight budget, you can actually use a USB mic in the same way! You can hear the result in the video below. I used a $49 USB mic called the Samson Q1U.

In either case, what you do next is open your video in your video editing program (I used Vegas Pro in the video below), import the audio into it, sync it up with the camcorder audio (which will record its awful through the built-in mics on the camera) by putting it into a new audio track below the camcorder audio track. Then once the audio files are in sync (you can manually do this just by sliding the good audio around under the camcorder audio until they match up), simply delete or mute the camcorder audio, and voila! You have the good video with the good audio.

Rode iXY for iPad/iPhone

If you can't get at least a laptop to where the video shoot is happening, you can use a mobile digital recording device like a Zoom H4, or any of a dozen other similar brands and models. These record high quality audio, usually onto SD cards, which you can then import into your video program. Of course you can get mics nowadays that plug straight into your smart phone. Some really good examples of these are the Apogee MiC, the Tascam iM2X, or the Rode iXY. Rode even makes a lapel mic now that plugs into an iPhone or iPad - the Rode SmartLav.

In the video below, you can see and hear exactly what I'm talking about.

If you have any tips on getting better audio on your videos, please leave a comment!

Cheers,

Ken

Musicians Starter Kit - $496.95

I just saw a video over on CNET that described setting up a home music recording studio for under $1,000. And that was supposed to make you think it was a great price. Holy cow! You can do much better.

The CNET studio items are excellent. There is no doubt of that. But if you are not ready to drop $860 dollars for a starter studio, check out the same basic setup that B&H Pro Audio put together with my specs, and that will cost you only $496.95 - The M-Audio MobilePre Recording Musician Starter Kit.

One thing that is important to note here is that the CNET package did not include mic stands, and it only included one mic - the large diaphragm condenser (Rode NT1-A). Our package has 2 mic stands, a large diaphragm Audio Technica AT-2020) AND a small diaphragm condenser mic (the latter being excellent for acoustic guitar and as a shotgun mic replacement on video shoots).

Yes, the Rode NT1-A is a very good mic. And so are a lot of mics over $200. But you know what? There are some excellent mics under $200 as well. The Rode is not necessarily the best choice for your first studio. Once you know that audio recording is going to feature prominently in your life or business, upgrade to the more expensive mics one at a time.

Oh, and you also get Pro Tools SE along with our package as well, just like the CNET recommendations.

So if you want a musicians starter studio that can record pro quality audio, you can get that for $496.95 from B&H, or build your own according to the CNET video for $896. Your choice:).

Check out the CNET recommendation here: http://cnettv.cnet.com/build-your-own-mobile-recording-studio-under-1/9742-1_53-50146360.html

Happy recording.

Ken

Below is a video by David Crandall showing you how to use the arpeggiator tool in FL Studio:

But on the night of his last swim, he came out with a hoodie over his headphones.  And when the camera showed him in close-up, it was clear that there was a piece of white tape covering the SOL REPUBLIC logo.  What's up with that?

I'm assuming there is some sort of rule about sponsorship or anything that might make it appear that an athlete is promoting a product during the Olympics.  I certainly understand that.  But it seemed a bit late to put that genie back in the bottle considering the SOL REPUBLICS loud and proud at his 6 previous events this week.  And I think it actually called more attention to them to have a piece of tape plastered over the logo.  Heck, on an HD screen you could actually see the logo through the tape.  Oops.  Oh well.  I guess they tried.

If you're interested in getting your own SOL REPUBLIC headphones, click here. Doh!

The problem (especially if you were not a math fan in school) is that doing any kind of calculations involving decibels is most definitely not straightforward.  dBs involve logarithms (logs).  Yeah, that's right.  You remember the scary button on your calculator with that word on it?  Well if you're going to do any dB math, you gotta deal with logs.

Fortunately, Chuck McGregor just wrote this excellent guide to doing dB calculations without the pain.  See the full article here: http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/a_practical_guide_to_key_audio_calculations/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed#When:18:34:18Z

In the interest of full disclosure I have to admit that I do not own any Golden Age Project products.  When I say "just discovered" above, I mean as in I just read about them 5 minutes ago.  This will change, of course.  I plan to acquire some of their wares as soon as may be.  But until then I thought I'd share what I know so far, mainly because their philosophy of providing the best price/performance ratio is quite consistent with mine.  I try to get the word out that you can enter into the world of professional audio without spending nearly as much as you think you'd have to.

So here are a few of their products:

D2 - Large Diaphragm Dynamic Microphone (similar to the RE20 radio broadcast mic)

FC 1 MK II - F.E.T Condenser Microphone

F4 - Multi-Pattern Small Capsule Condenser Microphone

R1 MKII Ribbon Microphone

D1 Classic-Style Dynamic Microphone

PRE-73 MKII - Vintage Style Preamplifier

As soon as I get an opportunity to review these items I will let everyone know with a series of new posts.

They look awesome, but of course it's how they sound that matters.

Cheers,

Ken

Obviously it reminds us that mixing music is a combination of art and science. But from my point of view, the science - or put another way, the methods and reasons for those methods - come first. Otherwise we wouldn't have as many brushes and paints and palettes and easels (OK, you see I'm running with the "art" metaphor here:)) to create the art we envision.

Fortunately the author, Bruce Kaphan, gives plenty of useful concrete tips to create better mixes, such as his typical pan settings for drum kits and other instruments, how he begins a mixing session, etc.

One other thing that comes through in the article is the presupposition that there will be three distinct people involved in a music recording project: the person recording and preparing the tracks (recording engineer), the person mixing the project (the mix engineer), and the person mastering the project (the mastering engineer). See our post
Recording Engineer, Mix Engineer and Mastering Engineer – Oh My for more information on what the heck I mean by all that.

Anyway, do yourself a favor if you mix music and get thee to this article, which you can read in its entirety here: http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/122.html