Nice - I dig that. But sorry - you're way off on that estimate of $5000. I see some stellar gear there - $2500 API channel strip, $3200 Tube Tech compressor, $3500 Neumann U87 mic, $2000 laptop, $600 monitor, $4000 Neve Portico EQs (I think), (2) Empirical Labs Distressors ($2000 ea). That's the gear you see and that I recognize. There's probably another $500 in cabling, $200 in stands, and I'd assume there's a desktop computer in there too ($2500 worth, I bet). And then there's the plugins you don't see - a reverb plugin, for sure, along with more EQs and compression. Probably a mastering plugin too. Call it $1500 worth of plugins. And the monitors - those look like Adam A7xs which are $1500/pr. Oh and $200 worth of headphones. And the instruments - no way that they have less than $1000 invested there. And the acoustic treatment - not less than $300 but probably not more than $1000. And the other things in there cost money too - studio desks are special b/c they can't vibrate when loud noise/bass is present (so you aren't using a $100 craigslist desk w/o some serious re-tooling). Studio racks (for the rack gear), instrument stands, etc.
I lost count of the total but it's probably safe to say that the gear/room pictured in that video is a multiple of $5000.
That's an excellent breakdown - you have a much better eye for the equipment than I do. Total bill looks around $30,000. Rent is probably $800/mo for the 36 months they took to record, so there's another ~ $30k. The total is expensive for a hobby, but within startup finances. This was the first studio album by this artist but not the first album, so this compares well to a bootstrapped startup.
I stand corrected. That being said, the point I was trying to make is that even if they spent $10k or $25k on studio equipment buying all new gear they still sold 254,000 albums to date.
They probably could have made this with an Apogee Mic and nobody would have known the difference.
But now he can ebay all that hardware with a signature of authenticity or something and probably make 200% of their money back.
I don't know why more bands don't do that, resell value on good mics is pretty good. Use Kickstarter to buy some mics and preamps and sell them when you're done!
That's just not true. In fact, I wouldn't agree with a single statement you just made. An Apogee mic is good but there's a reason he used a $3500 mic + $20,000 more in gear. For you to say that a $200 mic would have achieved the same results is just utter crap. If that was the case, no one would use a professional studio and, instead, would buy said $200 MiC and be done with it.
And wait - you think that his fans, the ones paying $0.99 for the song, are going to pay $40,000 for his gear? Sheesh - I have to believe that you're just talking to hear yourself talk at that point.
The resell value on mics is no different than anything else except in one regard: it's much, much harder to tell fakes in mics, and it's much harder to detect problems in mics than it is with other gear. With a guitar, it's easy - does it play well, stay in tune, feel good, and have no scratchy pots? Then it's good. With an amp, does it sound good? Is it loud? Any scratchy pots? When you tap the tubes, are any microphonic? But with a mic - it's much trickier. You pretty much have to send it to the manufacturer for them to tell you whether it is "right".
That being said, buying and selling used microphones is the way to go for most hobbyists. You can buy said Neumann U87 for $2500 used thus potentially saving $1000. As long as it doesn't need to be reconditioned, you've done well.
He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm listening to the song on my macbook right now, there is no way I could tell the difference on this thing, ditto to most people.
swap out "nobody could" for "most people couldn't" and it makes more sense.
This guy is there with a good, expensive, microphone. He records it, putting the signal through cables, pre-amps, amps, mixers, software of various types. Eventually it gets encoded to whatever he's releasing his music as.
Someone downloads that.
Most people do not have monitors or studio quality headphones. Most people have bog standard mass produced headphone drivers (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of them are made in the same factory) - eg skull candy or urbanears. And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. They might have been playing with the filters to give it more bass.
So, really, are those listeners going to tell the difference between a good microphone and the Singstar microphones?
And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer.
Or they go to clubs, where a poorly mastered track will sound awful. Plus people who really love music can tell, and those are the people who popularize it. A poorly mastered track will be more irritating than exciting to them, and they won't introduce it to their friend at the radio station, or put it on their music blog, remix a club version, or play it at their next DJ gig.
Just because a low quality track might sound okay on the cheap equipment of the masses doesn't mean it is socially capable of getting there. It needs to have merit to make it.
>there's a reason he used a $3500 mic + $20,000 more in gear.
I agree completely. It's called superstition. : )
The days of needing 20k in outboard gear are gone. They've been gone for a really, really long time.
Audio Engineering, an industry of which I've been working professionally in for 5 years now, has by far, one of the most backward, superstitious, and anti-science populations I've ever had the misfortune of working with. The more expensive the gear, and the higher the numbers, the more some poor sap will just NEED it before he can produce good cuts.
"Science can't measure what I'm hearing" - 90% of audio engineers when discussing over-priced gear.
While I agree that a <$200 microphone probably won't cut it if you're going for a up-front, nuanced vocal, I do firmly believe a 3.5k microphone being overkill. Put someone in a good room, with a decent mic, and a good engineer, and no one will ever know that a U-87 wasn't used. If you opt for the digital, modeled version of the API 2500, rather than the hardware version, what happens? Song ruined? Audiophiles won't buy the record out of spite? Nope. Those tiny, tiny, tiny, details are completely irrelevant.
Listen to the shootouts on gearslutz. It's a crap shoot as to whether or not people can distinguish between the true analog recording, or its modeled brethren. Further, it's never a matter of one being better than the other, it just that one is slightly "different."
So my point being, I don't necessarily agree with your premise that great gear is needed for good results. 20k single channel compressors are nothing but hog-wash. A simple ABX test would show it.
It was a lot nicer when the dollar was strong and I got a pair of brand new TLM-170s off musiciansgear for $2500. The $1300 pair of KM-140s was nice, too. Those were the days, I guess.
> They probably could have made this with an Apogee Mic and nobody would have known the difference.
I highly doubt that. Every single microphone is different and the high end mics (Neumann, Schoeps, AKG, even the Shure SM-7) all have unique tonal characteristics that make them desirable for different types of recordings. Vocals will sound noticeably different through a shitty integrated USB microphone than they will through a $25k U47 connected to an API or Neve preamp.
I lost count of the total but it's probably safe to say that the gear/room pictured in that video is a multiple of $5000.