this post was submitted on
20 points (83% like it)
25 up votes 5 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

19
20

ELI5: How is a professional studio set-up?(hardware + software) (self.WeAreTheMusicMakers)

submitted ago by Toovya

I've seen pictures of absolutely beautiful studios, but dear god how does it work!?:

Is everything hooked up to a computer?

Is everything running through the computer onto a server?

Is the DAW running on the server, or just the computer?

What if multiple people need to work at the same time? Do they all connect through a network onto the same project file? Or do they each have their own project and piece it together after?

How is everything connected? How do you prevent overloading? Is the interface the only thing directly connected to the computer?

Many many thanks. Hardcore studio 101

all 27 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 16 points17 points ago

Depends. There are soooo many ways to do this. Let's start by pulling up an image of a fairly typical high-end working studio. In this case, Finnvox Studio B shall suffice for our purposes

http://i.imgur.com/Ac83o.png

Everything coming in from the live room where all the artists are is connected to the analogue console. Optionally, the signal may pass the outboard pre-amps first and bypassing the console pre-amp, but that's completely optional.

The patchbay allow the operators to patch in outboard gear to any point of the signal chain.

The outputs from the analogue console is connected to the inputs of the protools HD interfaces. The protools HD interfaces are connected to a computer.

The outputs of the protools HD interfaces are routed back to the console. The console is connected to all the monitors: optionally, you might use a monitor controller to choose which monitors you use for listening.

There's only one computer in this setup. Usually, the only case where you want more computers is if you have computers slaved to running very demanding sample libraries or other such processes.

The files are backed up in triplicate, usually to a NAS solution at the studio. Provided the studio knows WTF they are doing, of course.

Multiple people DON'T usually work on the same project at the same time. If they do, you simply copy the project files over, and copy the changes back in. There's nothing fancy here, just good working practices and good workflow.

The interfaces are the only things directly connected to the computer. You prevent overloading by not having a gimped setup and knowing what your computer can handle.

Ask if there's anything, and if anyone spots errors, please feel free to correct me :)

[–]PSteak 0 points1 point ago

Here's the question I've never been able to figure out: how does the engineer set up mics and adjust them if the control room is in one place and the live room in the other. Isolating headphones, or do they control an intern like a voice-operated puppet ("a little to the left, Marty....") or they're just so good (or lazy) they don't need to experiment...

[–]jaymz168 7 points8 points ago*

Usually it's just an intern, but Eric Valentine has some of his mics on little servo-controlled rigs so he can do fine positioning (like finding the sweet spot on a speaker cone) from the control room.

Video tour of Barefoot Recording

[–]Zerocrossing 1 point2 points ago

That is seriously fucking cool.

[–]jaymz168 2 points3 points ago

The "drumbrella" is a really cool tool, too. Also, he replaced the top plates of his console with some weird porous metal that is acoustically transparent so you don't get reflections off the console at the monitoring position.

[–]Zerocrossing 0 points1 point ago

That seems a little more voodoo-y to me, but it's his money XD

[–]Muffmuncher 0 points1 point ago

You mean, how does he decide on a final mic position? He tries a position, then listens, tweaks, and readjusts if necessary. Mic positions are changed quite rarely, we get it right the first time often. But yeah, I have gone crazy a few times because of shitty recording rooms.

Truth be told, I do pick the lazy option once in a while. I feel guilty, but artists expect us to work like flawless machinery, preferably invisible. :(

[–]PSteak 2 points3 points ago

You mean, how does he decide on a final mic position? He tries a position, then listens, tweaks, and readjusts if necessary.

I get that part; I am asking in the most literal sense: do you walk out to the live room, move a mic two inches, walk back to the control room, tell the drummer to bang the kit, listen and go "hmmm it sounds too orange" and then walk back out again, move the mic another inch and spin it 15 degrees, walk back to the control room, tell the drummer to bang the kit again, and now you go "hmm I like the orange, but I'm hearing some phasing with the cowbell" so you walk back out again and...- OK(!) I'll stop now, you get it.

[–]SLiPSTR34M 2 points3 points ago

Yeah. Sometimes studios have an assistant engineer to help with this.

[–]Muffmuncher 2 points3 points ago

Well, real life situations go somewhat like this:

You listen to the sound, you mic it the best way that experience has taught you, you go back to the control room, does it sound alright?, yes it does, good, let's record. And if it doesn't, we try another tried and trusted mic position, track again(a few minutes), play it back, and voila, problem's solved.

Honestly, we don't go all Vernier caliper on mic positions. I feel like I'm disappointing you here, but everyday studio work is far from those beautiful anecdotes by famous recording engineers.

But yeah, if ever we do minor tweaks, we have the asst engineer wear the artist headphones and then tell him what to do. :P

[–]FatFatAbsMusic Maker 0 points1 point ago

Kind of a newb to all this, but does "sounds too orange" actually mean something?

[–]PSteak 2 points3 points ago

No I was being silly. Unless you're on mushrooms. But getting back to my real question, though, reading audiogeek type articles in TapeOp and others, engie dudes will mention about how they tried all sorts of different variants with mic positions and mics and how finally, the best, warmest recording they got from Tom Waits' armpit after ten hours was this or that. I was wondering about the most basic mechanical way they operate. I enjoy imagining an intern with 50 mics strapped with velcro to themselves waving them around wildly like the Hokey Pokey until the engineer hits the buzzer and says "Freeze!"

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 2 points3 points ago*

It's more or less like this. You usually have a basic intuition or idea of what to use so you are more likely to try three mics rather than 30.

More importantly, if the performer is ready to go, you use whatever mic you have handy. You don't want to make the singer when he/she/it is inspired.

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 0 points1 point ago

You use an intern.

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 0 points1 point ago

an intern like a voice-operated puppet ("a little to the left, Marty....")

More or less. Usually it's more like "okay, sweep!" *intern sweeps from left to right back and forth while talent plays* "Okay, stop!" *intern stops, you're done.*

[–]buhzie2Music Maker 0 points1 point ago

So the analog outs of the board goes to the PT rig, recorded onto the computer, and then what, just a stereo output goes back to the console? Or does every output go back to the input where it came in?

So are the faders and everything from the preamp, eq, fader levels printed to the tracks in PT?

Never quite understood this.

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 2 points3 points ago

Depends.

So the analog outs of the board goes to the PT rig, recorded onto the computer

Depends. You can grab the outs before the faders, outs after the faders - really outs at any point in the signal chain. Joys of working with an analog console: they are built for flexibility in routing.

and then what, just a stereo output goes back to the console? Or does every output go back to the input where it came in?

Depends on whether you want digital or analog summing. You can do both. The AWS900 has automation as standard, so the fader moves are handled by the console itself: the DAW can either send the fader automation data or just the timecode. Really depends on how the console has been configured.

So are the faders and everything from the preamp, eq, fader levels printed to the tracks in PT?

You can do both or any combination thereof. Usually, you'd run microphone -> pre (console or outboard) -> eq (console or outboard) -> compression (console or outboard) -> DAW in -> DAW out -> faders -> master bus, but there are reasons to change this.

Never quite understood this.

Well, it gets a lot clearer when you fiddle on even a smaller analog console. Even medium consoles like a Toft ATB has inputs and outputs at every point, so it just becomes a question of how you like to work.

It doesn't get made easier by the fact that most large-format analogue consoles have separate mixdown modes that change the signal routing :)

There are tradeoffs with every configuration, so you have to make choices based on that. Do you want the summing to be analog or digital? Do you want to use the EQ on the console or do you want to bypass it? Etc etc.

[–]jaymz168 1 point2 points ago

Recording consoles have tape returns, typically as many as there are channel strips, though on some digital board there will be more returns than individual channel controls and you sort of page through them. Usually everything comes back out of the computer to the tape returns on the board for mixdown (if you're mixing OTB).

As far as printing during tracking, it depends. If you're using the direct outs to go to tape (or PT), then no, none of that stuff gets printed and is just being used for monitoring during tracking. If you're using the tape, main, or group outs, then yes all that stuff is printed. There no rule as to which way is "right" it's a personal preference thing whether you print effects during tracking.

[–]tossertomMusic Maker -1 points0 points ago

Analog console = waste of money, space. Instead buy a few more lcds and controll everything from there.

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 1 point2 points ago

Spoken like a man who has never touched an actual analogue console :)

[–]tossertomMusic Maker 1 point2 points ago*

In fact, I used to do work at a studio where they had an ONYX board as well as one of these. I loved it at first because I felt like such a professional. I mean, just LOOK at all those knobs! The more I learned, though, you realize how much these things are dinosaurs. There are more functional and economical ways of doing what a console mixer can do. Of course, go ahead and bash my perspective without even explaining yourself. Seems to be popular thing to do on the netz these days.

Edit: On second thought, I have noticed that many people are quite impressed at the sight of a large board so having one might get you some other benefits.

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 2 points3 points ago*

Oh, you worked on mackie gear. That does explain your perpective: I always thought the mackie gear sounded pretty awful, but at least they are durable. Hell, the TT24 isn't even an analogue console to begin with, and both of them are designed for live work. If the studio had those instead of a proper console, it kinda makes you go "hmm", doesn't it?

That came off way more condescending than I meant it, and I guess it's hard to try to talk about the difference between quality gear and not-so-quality gear without condescention always lurking just behind the corner. The difference between something like a Mackie Onyx and a Toft ATB is sort of like the difference between a factory-made Squier compared to a US Custom Shop Fender. One is made with the cheapest IC parts available, one is hand-soldered to a very high spec. The difference is pretty dramatic if you ever get to experience it.

Obviously the difference in price is pretty dramatic too: something like an audient 8024 will run you about 30x the price of a 24-channel mackie, but the price difference is there for a reason. You can bet your sweet ass no studio is going to pay 30x the price for bragging rights - not when their entire business depends on the margins.

Take my word for it, there's a whole world beyond mackie out there, and there is an immediately audle difference. I too didn't appreciate the difference when all I had to work on was yamaha desks. Both of them are mainly meant for live use, where durability is more important than what the gear sounds like. Hell, if had to choose between working on mackie/yamaha or working ITB, I'd choose ITB too!

If you have an analogue console that actually sounds better than the digital gear you have, working on an analogue desk is much faster and easier. The problem with analogue gear is that it takes a lot of maintenance as well as a lot of space, and there's really no such thing as perfect recall in the analogue world. The fact that there's no perfect recall is not really a negative though, because it encourages you to make decisions and move on. That means you work faster and get better results then you would with endless fiddling.

I like analogue consoles - even smaller ones such as the Toft ones. I'm not a big fan of tape though - never really was.

[–]tossertomMusic Maker 2 points3 points ago

I agree that a board could have some advantages particularly in live settings.

For recording purposes, however, there is something terribly wrong if your sound integrity somehow depends on your console. The signal chain should go preamps>ADC>DAW. Once in the DAW you can do anything you want to the signal losslessly, and send it wherever you want. I don't want to add anything to the signal chain if I don't have to.

Edit: clarity.

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 2 points3 points ago

Except of course if you have a console with pre-amps, eq and compression you like. In that case, you can use the console instead of using the plug-ins and work faster.

For recording purposes, however, there is something terribly wrong if you are using a console to enhance your sound.

No, not at all, that's exactly why you want to use a console.

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 1 point2 points ago*

Again, the reason you use a console instead of digital is that it's faster to work with and sounds better. Serban Ghenea was kind enough to provide a quick comparison:

http://recordingbootcamp.com/wp-content/uploads/audio/avril-a-b-a-b.wav

One half of the wav file was mixed on an analogue console, the other in protools. Which half do you prefer?

The question shouldn't be "is the signal chain lossless?" The relevant question to ask instead is "does this sound good?" and "did I complete my work faster?" Besides, on a large-format analogue console you can more or less completely customize your signal chain. That's sort of the point behind a large-format console.

[–]tossertomMusic Maker 0 points1 point ago

The sounds clips are very similar to my ears, but the first half seems to half seems to have a little more punch so I would prefer it. I don't know what that demonstrates.

[–]makoivisMusic Maker 0 points1 point ago

The first clip is pro tools. I personally prefer the latter half because the low end has more definition and there's more separation (more width/depth) to the mix.

What it demonstrates is that you have a preference, and you prefer the sound of digital. Awesome :)

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 4603 on app-60 running 86c9e1d.