I know most of them use Apple computers, but how much would a professional quality setup cost, and what specs would you need? If I were to buy a loaded G5 mac, what else would I need to get a profesisonal quality sound?
Thanks in advance.
Honestly, in the few recording studio I’ve been in (about four or five), they all used PCs.
Of the six studios I’ve been in, only one used a Mac as the primary recording platform, and even they had a PC right next to it in the control room. The simple issue being that there is more software for the PC than for the Mac in virtually every category you can think of, even in applications for which the Mac is supposedly superior. Of course, PC equipment is also significantly less expensive, and for audio engineers, the computer is just the beginning of what you’re going to be spending money on.
It’s less about the make of the equipment, IMHO, than many might assume. I would say on the hardware side, besides a fast processor, a fast, quiet, reliable hard-drive and plenty of RAM is essential (obviously, the computer’s motherboard should be advanced enough to handle these resources–you can’t load up an old PC with the best internals and expect the best).
Usually, there’s also hardware to faciliate the connections between the main input (usually a large mixing board) and the computer itself; some higher-end software packages are made to work with specific hardware. Often, setups will include ADAT machines hooked up to the computer, but most setups I’ve seen record directly to the hard drive.
But for most engineers I know, the software is the thing. ProTools is widely considered the flagship software/hardware package for recording music. SoundForge is also very popular. Cakewalk is probably the most popular home-recording platform, but it pales in comparison to a full ProTools setup (it’s also much less expensive). Beyond the recording/sequencing software, there is a vast range of effects and processing software; the engineers I know collect these like a guitarist might collect pedals.
Oh, I should comment. The most important parts for a professional quality sound is hardly the computer. Granted, you want a decent computer, with oodles of harddrive space, especially if you’ll be multi-tracking to hell.
The most important parts for creating a professional sound are things like your microphones (SM-57s and SM-58s are a good place to start for affordable, professional quality instrument and vocal mikes), your pre-amps, your amplifiers, your miking technique, soundproofing, the character of your room sound in general, etc. Your computer is just a recording device. A better computer and better software isn’t going to magically make a professional quality sound.
I would suggest to go to the library, and pick up some books on the basics of sound recording, sound engineering, etc. The essentials and theory of the art are still essentially the same. You want to get the best possible sound before it gets converted into 1s and 0s on your computer. Where the computer comes in handy is when you start manipulating your sound files. But you want the best possible source to work with. Otherwise, you’re just trying to turn a shitty recording into a good one, which ain’t gonna work.
I’m now primarily a home recordist, but I’ve worked many hours in several professional studios, and I have a small hobby/psuedo-business of building and configuring PC’s for audio recording.
The whole “Macs are teh better for music!!!111” thing was true about 10 years ago, but hasn’t really been valid for at least five years. Like the other posters, every studio I’ve worked in has kept Macs around for compatability, but for the most part they’ve all gone to PC.
It’s this simple - You can put together a comparable PC setup for about a quarter of the price that a Mac setup will cost you. And since studios are constantly spending money on things like mics, preamps, instruments, maintenance for older tape machines, and tape, $$ is a big concern.
The main considerations when it comes to using a PC for recording are fast hard drives, and multiple ones at that - the standard configuration is to use one hard drive for your operating system, programs, etc., and one or more other dedicated hard drives as “Spools of tape.” They need to be fast, too - 7200rpm UATA hard drives would be a minimum setup, but definitely go for 10,000rpm SATA drives if you’ve got the cash. A fast processor and lots of ram (at least a gig) are also a given.
But the single factor in getting “professional quality” sound is a good audio interface with quality A/D converters. These converters are the things that convert the sound at your inputs - microphones and lines-in from devices like keyboards or guitars - into digital audio files. Something like this would be a great choice for someone getting started (MOTU’s products are designed so that multiple units can be used together in a single system, so you could always add more or upgrade to the better one). The quality of your soundcard or audio interface’s AD converters is the single technical factor that will determine whether the quality of your recordings is good or bad.
If you’re just planning on recording one track at a time, like in a home studio, don’t worry about a mixer. Instead, put your money toward a few good mics and a good mic preamp, and do all of your mixing in the software. The quality that mixing “in the box” will give you is unmatched, unless you have a $100,000+ console that you can mix through.
When it comes to your choice of software, it’s your call. If you’re just doing audio, go with ProTools or Steinberg’s Nuendo. I personally think that ProTools is a bit overrated and that its “industry standard” schtick is nonsense. If you’re planning on incorporating sequencing or software instruments like synthesizers and software samplers, look into something like Steinberg’s Cubase SX (PC), MOTU’s Digital Performer, or Logic (Mac). My choice is Cubase SX - I’ve used cubase since version 3 back in the day, and it just feels right to me and does what I want it to. See if you can go to a local music store like a Guitar Center and do a few mini-sessions with several of the popular software packages. You’ll figure out which one works for you.
Hope this helps!
This is very true; if we expand the discussion to include recording equipment, then things like mics are easily more important than the system used to process the recording. Even cables have to be considered, though, since a great mic hooked up to a great digital-audio workstation by a crappy cable will defeat the whole system. The proverbial weak link in the chain. Building a studio, I’d even sweat a lot more over which monitors to buy than the computer system itself.
Definitely agreed. And VCO3 pointed out an important link I had skipped over: the A/D converters. The moral of the story is you want the best possible source to work with. And the computer doesn’t even enter into the equation.
As for monitors, I’ve worked with one particularly talented audio engineer who prefered to work not with the best-state-of-the-art monitors, but rather just some decent ones. His theory was that no end listener has such precise equipment, and it’s better to get closer to what the listener is likely to hear. Granted, all audio engineers take into account where music is likely to be listened to, and mix-down for that, but this guy in particularly was adamantly against crystal-clear perfect monitors in the stuido setting. And it worked for him, really well.
One of the best drum sounds I’ve heard recorded was through this guy using a single mike (a very nice Neumann) positioned somewhat above and a bit in front of the bass drum. It was a very unconventional miking technique, but he made that trap kit come alive with a very “live” sound. So I trust him.
This is a great lesson to all recordists, and one that we all seem to learn at one time or another. In fact, it’s the reason that the Yamaha NS-10’s have been the choice in nearfield monitors for years - they don’t sound like a million bucks in the way that the more expensive Genelecs do, but if you can get your mix sounding great on them, it’ll sound great anywhere.
But quality monitors are definitely a must-have for recording; it’s important to get as “flat” a response as possible so that you are hearing what’s actually on tape (or disk) and not an enhanced version of that. I used to use Alesis Monitor One’s, and it always drove me nuts because they gave me an artificially bassy response; projects mixed on them would be severely lacking in low end on any other system. I’m now a big fan of KRK’s and even Event’s monitors (though I’m looking into getting one of those new Bluesky 2.1 systems).
-
-
- It is true that you can build a PC lots cheaper than a Mac, that choice really comes down to the software you want to be able to use–but the above is not quite correct, in my opinion. If you want to do good+cheap home-studio recording, it’s far more cost-effective to spend $500-$1000+ on a small hard-disk based multitrack recorder, and then just use any cheap noisy PC with a lot of RAM you have for mixing tracks on. The hard-disk recorders are better for a few reasons: they are pretty-much silent already, they tend to have better AD converters than a typical PC soundcard, they are easier to use and won’t crash or have OS-related issues. They will already have XLR and 1/4" inputs, and may have phontom power to drive mics that need it. To make a PC do all this would add way over $1000 to its price. …Also they are easily portable–a tremendous advantage you don’t realize until you have. Most smaller ones only do two tracks recording at once (stereo), but some can do four or more.
~
- It is true that you can build a PC lots cheaper than a Mac, that choice really comes down to the software you want to be able to use–but the above is not quite correct, in my opinion. If you want to do good+cheap home-studio recording, it’s far more cost-effective to spend $500-$1000+ on a small hard-disk based multitrack recorder, and then just use any cheap noisy PC with a lot of RAM you have for mixing tracks on. The hard-disk recorders are better for a few reasons: they are pretty-much silent already, they tend to have better AD converters than a typical PC soundcard, they are easier to use and won’t crash or have OS-related issues. They will already have XLR and 1/4" inputs, and may have phontom power to drive mics that need it. To make a PC do all this would add way over $1000 to its price. …Also they are easily portable–a tremendous advantage you don’t realize until you have. Most smaller ones only do two tracks recording at once (stereo), but some can do four or more.
-
This is definitely a viable option, though one should make sure that one has some sort of digital I/O on one’s computer for transferring the recordings over without having to resample them using shoddy converters!
It really just comes down to personal preference; standalone recorders can be great for people who are especially intimidated or superstitious when it comes to computers. I have a buddy who recently switched over from using a 16-track tape machine to using an Alesis HD24 Hard Disk Recorder - he couldn’t get his head around software recording, but this thing is perfect for him, and he can still mix through is desk down to 1/2" tape. On the other hand, I find workingw ith the HD24 intolerable - I can’t see the audio tracks that I’m working on! My personal method involves lots of editing-as-I-record - I’ll already be editing and comping before I even record a second pass of an audio track, so I really need a computer-based system.
I wouldn’t argue that it’s cheaper a cheaper route, though - if anything, it’s neck-and-neck. PC fans and power supplies have come a long way in bringing down noise, and for only a few bucks more you can get a virtually silent computer going. My current system runs in the room when I’m recording with condensor mics and you can’t even tell the damned thing’s on!
Like anything, it comes down to what works for you.
Thank you very much for all the really informative responses. Would any of you mind giving me a basic list of things one would need to recreae a professional studio, and how much it would cost? Thanks again.
IANAn Audio Dude, but I would imagine that there are “professional” studios at a range from $3,000 to $100,000. Might be better to supply a ballpark range that you’re aiming for that they can work off of to recommend the parts.