• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Home vs. Studio

C

CultParadox

Dec 28, 2001
69
0
39
Cape Town, South Africa
#1
Hey everyone

I was in studio for the first time the other day. I played my '95 Fender MIM Jazz (pickups wide open) with new D'Addario XL's through a Boss DI-1 into the board. When I heard the track, I (and everyone around) was astounded at how good the tone was! I had no idea my bass could sound that good.

So I was in the music shop like two days ago, and I saw the Boss DI-1. I enquired innocently as to its price, and the saleperson gently reminded me that since I have a Roland DB-500, I have that exact DI box (obviously he means the technology) built into my amp. Brilliant!

Now I'm messing around at home with N-track ( :spit: ) and my M-Audio Delta 1010LT, coming from the DI on my amp... and it sounds... well, let's just say it doesn't begin to compare to that tone I heard in studio.

My big question is... why not? Why does it sound better in studio than at home?
 
#2
It could be the analog --> digital converters. The studio was probably using 192KHz converters and your M-Audio Delta 1010LT tops out at 96KHz with a normal operation of 48KHz.

So, first off, try recording at 24/96 to see if that helps your sound.
 
#3
CultParadox said:
My big question is... why not? Why does it sound better in studio than at home?
Click to expand...
Everything sounds good in the studio. Once you get it home it never sounds the same. It's true with every recording. You have to remember your in a "sound safe" room at the studio. Built for good sound. More than likely the room your listening to your N-Track stuff isn't. There is also the converter thing also mentioned earlier. Not to mention compression and other little enhancers thrown in.
 
#4
And studio monitors - they probably have high end studio monitors and a sub system, tuned for the room. Also, if they have a good board with solid onboard preamps - or high end outboard pres - that would make a huge difference. They also may have hi-end compressors in the chain, etc. There's a lot to be said for all of that.
 
#5
firkinahsoul said:
Everything sounds good in the studio. Once you get it home it never sounds the same. It's true with every recording. You have to remember your in a "sound safe" room at the studio. Built for good sound. More than likely the room your listening to your N-Track stuff isn't. There is also the converter thing also mentioned earlier. Not to mention compression and other little enhancers thrown in.
Click to expand...

The original poster said he used a DI so I figure the room's acoustics can be discounted in this specific case.
 
#9
Thanks for all the responses!

The engineers were pretty novice, so I wasn't going through a compressor (unfortunately).

Yes, they had - I think - Yamaha NS-10 (?) monitors there, which definitely beat my JVC hifi, and the control room was almost certainly a better listening environment than my room: my room has a big glass window opposite the speakers, has a very steep, sloped ceiling and has metal blinds :spit:

I was recording at 48kHz at 24bits, so I'll try bump that up to 96kHz; maybe I'll go get another hard drive for this comp.

I'll let you all know how it goes!
 
#10
My bet is that you ran the bass through a very high end console. Most big buck studios have board that cost well over $100K, and that's what imparts that 'downtown sound' to big budget studio projects.

It defitately wasn't the NS-10s :D
 
#11
Foremost element of your impression are your monitors and room acoustic.

Recording 44kHz - 24 bit is just ok. No need to get higher in this regard.
Maybe you can try to thicken your sound with compressor plugin.
Blockfish compressor is free and gives very good results for bass. http://www.digitalfishphones.com/main.php?item=2&subItem=5

From commercial products, very good compressor is Sonalksis SV-315 or PSP Vintage Warmer.
www.sonalksis.com
Invalid Link Removed
 
#12
As stated above I would say that the signal chain in general is going to be better than at home. A big part that seems to have been over looked is the Pre-amp. He took a DI right? Thats meens he used a mic pre to get your bass up to line level. That is the single most important gain stage in the whole process and pre's make a huge difference. This is why when you used your DI at home it did not sound the same. Also shows why pre's can cost thousands per channel.

Good monitoring and environment are big too ;)
 
#13
The Roland DI into an 1010LT should give you fantastic tone. You don't need NASA quality electronics these days to have a great tone in home recording.

In the studio, you had experienced folks adjusting sliders from instinct. They probably got the levels and EQ zeroed in in a hurry, so everything sounded great.

At home, YOU have to do the zeroing in to get things just right.

Furthermore 16 bit and 44 KHz is fine for recording, since that is what a commercial CD will be playing back at.

Running much higher sampling rates and bit depth will only tax your home computer's resources to the point where you get break-up and distortion. Some times less is more.

Artisan
 
#15
it's a pretty bad idea, imo, to run non-mastered music through a home hi-fi. not only will it not sound very good, it could very well ruin your speakers.

studio monitors - even cheap ones like those ns10's - have more solidly constructed drivers, which will not choke on very low frequencies, like some home speakers will.
 
#16
Droog said:
As stated above I would say that the signal chain in general is going to be better than at home. A big part that seems to have been over looked is the Pre-amp. He took a DI right? Thats meens he used a mic pre to get your bass up to line level. That is the single most important gain stage in the whole process and pre's make a huge difference. This is why when you used your DI at home it did not sound the same. Also shows why pre's can cost thousands per channel.

Good monitoring and environment are big too ;)
Click to expand...
Another vote for the Preamp. They can make a huge difference.

- Andrew
 
#17
Artisan said:
Furthermore 16 bit and 44 KHz is fine for recording, since that is what a commercial CD will be playing back at.

Running much higher sampling rates and bit depth will only tax your home computer's resources to the point where you get break-up and distortion. Some times less is more.

Artisan
Click to expand...

Find me a commercially released CD that was recorded at 16/44.1

Most recordings are done at considerably higher res and sampling rate (or analog) and are mastered as such then at the end of the process are down converted to 16 bit at 44.1. To say that recording at higher frequencies and resolution will give you break-up and distortion is a bit paranoid sounding to me. I have know idea what your computers spec's are but if you can do the higher res/sampling rate then go for it. If your compy can't handle it you will know right away. Do some experiments at higher res and such then nock it down to 44.1, 16bit It will sound better than if you just recorded recorded at the "CD quality" level to begin with. Though if this proves to be to complicated then by all means stick with what you know. People should not be afraid of "Hi-res" its not just for big studio's and such.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back