# How much does it cost to produce a CD?



## GuitarsCanada

Just curious, I am not doing any recording myself. But what is a ballpark figure for what a band/artist might have to shell out to produce and release a CD today? Or is it better to record the tunes and offer them up on a digital format and not even produce CD's


----------



## Guest

Do you mean just getting physical media made? Or like the end-to-end cost from recording to disc-in-hand?

For just physical media, it depends. Art work costs, packaging costs, whether you get a glass master for duplication made, total run size. You can run through the options and what not at CD / DVD Duplication, CD / DVD Replication, CD / DVD Duplicators, CD / DVD Printers, Blank CDs and DVDs -- these guys are pretty ubiquitous and have a nice DIY pipeline for indies to use.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

iaresee said:


> Do you mean just getting physical media made? Or like the end-to-end cost from recording to disc-in-hand?
> 
> For just physical media, it depends. Art work costs, packaging costs, whether you get a glass master for duplication made, total run size. You can run through the options and what not at CD / DVD Duplication, CD / DVD Replication, CD / DVD Duplicators, CD / DVD Printers, Blank CDs and DVDs -- these guys are pretty ubiquitous and have a nice DIY pipeline for indies to use.


I mean the whole process. Recording studio, engineers and producing the final product. Is it something that is in the reach of your normal blokes or are we talking bank loans?


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Guest

GuitarsCanada said:


> I mean the whole process. Recording studio, engineers and producing the final product. Is it something that is in the reach of your normal blokes or are we talking bank loans?


I can only talk about my experiences when I was The Apollo Effect -- that was the last time I went through the whole "go to a studio" process. We had a producer on for the project, 6 days of studio time at a good studio but with a junior engineer, time in another studio for mixing with a very good engineer, and then mastering at Joao Carvalho Mastering. It wasn't cheap. And then I think we pressed 500 copies of the disc. But between 5 of us we were bank roll it. I'm not sure if the other guys had to put it on credit cards or what not, but I was able to pay my share out of of pocket. It was less than the price of new, compact car -- hows that for vague?  We got some deals because the producer (Virgil Scott) was connected with the studios we used and he basically worked for very, very little.

We didn't recoup our costs selling those 500 CDs at $10/each. So there's some more information.

The costs are going to be all over the board. There are so many little hole-in-the-wall "studios" you can use now. Places that'll let you record in their room for not a lot of money. And of course you can do so much in your own room now too. And mixing and mastering costs are all over the board. There's not really a going rate, you can always search a little longer and find someone a little cheaper.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

So I assume that even when a band gets signed that these services are provided by the record company but the costs are eventually deducted from the income of the band, via either live or music sales revenue. As the production levels go up in quality and length, so does the cost.


----------



## Guest

GuitarsCanada said:


> So I assume that even when a band gets signed that these services are provided by the record company but the costs are eventually deducted from the income of the band, via either live or music sales revenue. As the production levels go up in quality and length, so does the cost.


Yes. The label loans you the money to do this and you pay it back at your royalty rate. Even the 360 contract I saw (where the label took a cut of album sales, merch sales, touring profits, etc.), the repayment for the loan was from the royalties on album sales -- the label's cut from money made from _not_ from album sales was just, uh, their cut. That money didn't do anything to pay back the loan. Similarly, the label's cut from album sales doesn't go against your amount owing. That was just the one contract that was placed in front of us, but our lawyer said it was pretty boilerplate.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## torndownunit

For the DIY approach, costs widely vary as mentioned before. The one thing that is nice about digital technology is that there are some great studios around that are affordable. What is important though is who is running the control and the software in that case. There are people who are fantastic at it, and there are hobbyists. 

My bands last 4 song instrumental E.P. ran us about $600 which covered the studio time, mixing, and mastering all in the same facility. I personally think it sounds pretty damn good and the guy we worked with is really well regarded. He also acted as producer on the project. If we had needed to do vocals on these tunes, we would have needed about another 6 hours of studio time. So if you like how our recordings sounds, it's an example of what you CAN get for that price: Lost Forwards | Torn Down Units

You can get CD's with standard packaging produced in reasonable sized runs nowadays for $2 a unit with some searching. higher volumes you can get for even less.

So basically, when my band was gigging on a regular basis, we were making enough to cover our recordings. We don't gig often now, but the amount of money out of pocket is reasonable to me. I mean, if you think of it as a hobby, hobbies still cost money. Sports costs money. So to me, it's worth it.


----------



## jimihendrix

these guys charge $65 for a three song cd...

KR RECORDINGS | Facebook


----------



## Milkman

I did one for around $2500 "all in" a few years ago. That gave me 1000 copies, professionally packaged and with artwork. I'm happy with the results and sold more than enough to recoup my money. These days I use them as promotional demos.

The thing that saved me a bundle was negotiating a package deal on the recording. We settled on a sum based on nine songs, and it took how ever long it took.

I hate watching the clock when I'm trying to record.


----------



## Jim DaddyO

It depends on where you go to record. Small studios like the one I am learning at (not fully open yet), and the one the guy owns who is teaching me, can put out a really good CD for far less than you expect. Working with DAW's these days has really brought costs down as they contain virtually everything you need on board. What you pay for is the room, the engineer, and the production time/mastering. Of course the more complex the project, and the more you change things (same as in the middle of home reno's) the more it costs. For a few hundred, you can get in a studio for a weekend and knock off a demo from right off the floor. You do not have the advantages of the big studios, but remember, The Beatles best work was recorded on a 4 track with hardly any outboard equipment.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Milkman

I think it's time to throw out the old notions about budget for recording.

These days the gear required to produce high quality recordings is abundent and inexpensive. Yes, you will get better results with a better engineer. That part hasn't change, but the notion that you ned to go into a "Nimbus Nine" and spend a couple of hundred bucks an hour is all done IMO.

It comes down to a garbage in = garbage out situation. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a project if the songs and performances are lacking. That's stating the obvious, but it should be noted.

I think you need to take time with the bed tracks. Doing a recording in a weekend will give you demo quality if you work hard. I can't imagine producing anything worth selling in such a short amount of time. I worked frantically for around three weeks to produce mine, but cost wise I got great value.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Milkman

There ARE levels of quality available between Pinto and Lamborghini, LOL



nkjanssen said:


> Again, it depends what you want. Just take mastering process as an example - Are you OK with some kid in his bedroom mastering your project with his pirated copy of T-racks for $75, or do you want to get it mastered at Sterling Sound? If you're just going to be selling CD's off stage and distributing to friends and family, the former is probably fine. If you're hoping to get a commercial distribution deal and have significiant national radio play, in my view you'd be making a _big_ mistake by doing that. That kid in his bedroom does not have the proper room to master in, nor does he have the $500k playback system that is engineered for the room, nor does he have the processing gear, nor does he have the expertise or the ear to do a world-class job. Do you need a world-class job? Maybe not. Mastering a full album at Sterling could set you back $2,000. Is it worth it? Not if you're going to be selling a total of 100 albums at $10 a piece. If you're going to be selling 100,000 albums at $10 a piece, it probably is.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Milkman said:


> There ARE levels of quality available between Pinto and Lamborghini, LOL


I suppose for most, somewhere in the Chev range would be fine.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## torndownunit

nkjanssen said:


> Of course. Not so much with mastering, though. There are proper mastering rooms and there are poor mastering rooms. In my experience there isn't a whole lot in between that. You'll find a lot more variation in tracking and mixing options. At the tracking stage, you'll pay more for things like a really nice drum room or a really nice mic collection. At the mix stage, it's all about the engineer. Top mix engineers earn a lot of money. And there's a reason for that.
> 
> As with many things, there are diminishing returns. If the same album was recorded twice - once with a $20k budget and once with a $2k budget, would the $20k one sound 10x better? Not likely. If I'm your producer, though, I guarantee that the $20k one will sound better, or certainly more professional and polished anyway. We'll spend more time in tracking, we'll be recording in nicer sounding rooms, we'll be using higher quality mics, preamps and other outboard, maybe we'll even even track the drums to 1" 8-track, we'll be able to afford a better mix engineer, we'll have it properly mastered... If you want high quality, it's going to cost a bit. If mid-level quality is fine, we can do it cheaper. If "sky's the limit", I'll book the flights. Would you prefer Abbey Road or Peter Gabriel's Real World?
> 
> ...so I guess the answer to the original question is "Somewhere between $65 and $5,000,000."
> 
> ...but I've seen many production budgets for bands that range from modern rock to traditional country, and I can tell you that $10k to $20k is on the low end of reasonable for a full album by a professional recording and touring act (exclusing artwork and pressing). If you just need demo-quality, you can do it for significantly less.


I agree, but one important point is that nowadays there are people who CAN perform more than one of the tasks or recording really well. Computers can be used to cut corners, or they can be used properly to help reduce time on a lot of jobs by someone who knows what they are doing. Which leaves a really motivated engineer the time/option to learn more tasks. The guy who did our recordings is very highly regarded as an engineer, producer, mixer, and for his mastering. He has been flown to locations in the past to perform any one of those jobs (or all of them). He has done mastering in his own faclilities that was quality enough for large releases. You get all of this skillsets booking a session with him though.

It also costs a lot less to build a really good studio nowadays. It's still pricey, but there are home studios which are REALLY impressive out there. Again, it really comes down to proper research if budget is a really big factor. You can get a LOT for your money. 



> There ARE levels of quality available between Pinto and Lamborghini, LOL


That's the key point I think. Nowadays it's an obtainable goal to have a good studio built in your home. Home studio does not automatically mean 'cutting corners'. The technology has come that far. As for mic's, software, hardware etc., that sort of gear is completely dependant on the operator not the size of the studio. Again, just because it's a 'home studio' it does not always mean the gear is worse. There are a lot of major releases being recording in 'home' studios nowadays.


----------



## Guitar101

https://sites.google.com/site/rockinhorsecanada/black-velvet

Since were talking about the cost of recording. I thought I'd throw this out there. Not perfect but the cost was $0 since I did it in my home studio.
The guitar player was a great player I knew from Trenton, Ont. who did me a favour. Hope you like it.

As stated in earlier posts. Recording costs can vary greatly. Today’s computers are pretty powerful so start by recording yourself on your own equipment or borrow from a friend. I use Sonar and an E-MU 1820 Digital Audio System that I found on Ebay for around $200 but there is a lot of good quality low priced recording equipment on the market. I use my own mics and amps for recording and my own sound system for playback. You’ll also need good quality headphones and screens for the mics. I record on individual tracks rather than trying to record the whole band. If you have no desire to do your own recording, try to find someone local. Travel is expensive these days. Recording media is cheap so doing your own burning can save a few bucks. That’s a good place to start. You don’t have to spend a fortune to lay down a few good tracks. That’s my take on the subject.


----------



## jimihendrix

sounds great to me...!!!...


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> Of course. Not so much with mastering, though. There are proper mastering rooms and there are poor mastering rooms. In my experience there isn't a whole lot in between that. You'll find a lot more variation in tracking and mixing options. At the tracking stage, you'll pay more for things like a really nice drum room or a really nice mic collection. At the mix stage, it's all about the engineer. Top mix engineers earn a lot of money. And there's a reason for that.
> 
> As with many things, there are diminishing returns. If the same album was recorded twice - once with a $20k budget and once with a $2k budget, would the $20k one sound 10x better? Not likely. If I'm your producer, though, I guarantee that the $20k one will sound better, or certainly more professional and polished anyway. We'll spend more time in tracking, we'll be recording in nicer sounding rooms, we'll be using higher quality mics, preamps and other outboard, maybe we'll even even track the drums to 1" 8-track, we'll be able to afford a better mix engineer, we'll have it properly mastered... If you want high quality, it's going to cost a bit. If mid-level quality is fine, we can do it cheaper. If "sky's the limit", I'll book the flights. Would you prefer Abbey Road or Peter Gabriel's Real World?
> 
> ...so I guess the answer to the original question is "Somewhere between $65 and $5,000,000."
> 
> ...but I've seen many production budgets for bands that range from modern rock to traditional country, and I can tell you that $10k to $20k is on the low end of reasonable for a full album by a professional recording and touring act (exclusing artwork and pressing). If you just need demo-quality, you can do it for significantly less.



We'll have to disagree on this. Yes, mastering has a huge impact on the sound of the disk overall and it's a critical step, but this can be done at various levels of quality and most decent studios can do a good job at it. Again, it's 2011 now and the technology and outboard gear required to master a disk is no longer solely in the hands of the big studios.

It really comes down to the guy behind the board and this is no different than hiring Jeff Beck to play on your session or some giuy who s a great player in your local city. Is Beck better? Probably, but that doesn't mean everything else is crap.

It's a changing world out there. Selling CDs is getting next to impossible anyway. SOmewhere along the line (and yes, this is a topic that has been debated ad nauseum) society got the impression that music and intellectual property in general is free.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Milkman said:


> We'll have to disagree on this. Yes, mastering has a huge impact on the sound of the disk overall and it's a critical step, but this can be done at various levels of quality and most decent studios can do a good job at it. Again, it's 2011 now and the technology and outboard gear required to master a disk is no longer solely in the hands of the big studios.
> 
> It really comes down to the guy behind the board and this is no different than hiring Jeff Beck to play on your session or some giuy who s a great player in your local city. Is Beck better? Probably, but that doesn't mean everything else is crap.
> 
> It's a changing world out there. Selling CDs is getting next to impossible anyway. SOmewhere along the line (and yes, this is a topic that has been debated ad nauseum) society got the impression that music and intellectual property in general is free.


That really becomes a big question mark for those indie bands considering doing this. How can they make the money back. Yes it's great and fun to put out a CD but you have to do it within limits and hopefully recoup the cost at least. I think that today, the best chance for a band in that situation is to sell the CD's direct at live shows. Distribution would be a whole other expense.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

I notice nobody has mentioned the idea of skipping the CD thing altogether and just offering up the music via download (for a cost). Is that something that is growing at this point?


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> We'll have to disagree on this. Yes, mastering has a huge impact on the sound of the disk overall and it's a critical step, but this can be done at various levels of quality and most decent studios can do a good job at it. Again, it's 2011 now and the technology and outboard gear required to master a disk is no longer solely in the hands of the big studios.
> 
> It really comes down to the guy behind the board and this is no different than hiring Jeff Beck to play on your session or some giuy who s a great player in your local city. Is Beck better? Probably, but that doesn't mean everything else is crap.
> 
> It's a changing world out there. Selling CDs is getting next to impossible anyway. SOmewhere along the line (and yes, this is a topic that has been debated ad nauseum) society got the impression that music and intellectual property in general is free.


Did you do a CD of covers or originals?

I personally have avoided doing a covers CD, even though I'd love to, partly because I'm lazy and partly because I'm greedy. Maybe 80% lazy, 20% greed. Lazy, because I don't want to have to track down all the publishers who own the copyrights to those songs I want to record and figure out how to pay them for the copies of their songs I'm going to press. And greedy because, well, I don't want to have to pay them.

You?


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Guest

@nkjassen: so as a slight tangent to that, I actually think some people can both engineer/mix and master an album. But they are rare and go to extraordinary lengths to make it work well. For example: Gareth Jones. He's working on the new Sons & Daughters album and I've been following the process. They recorded using a mobile rig in an offsite environment. He mixed it in his own mixing studio. But he's taken it to Abbey Road to master. And he's bouncing mixes and mastered tracks off people for opinions all the while. No doubt that's an superhuman amount of re-arranging going on there to do that. And expensive.

Just thought that was an interesting thing to mention.


----------



## Milkman

iaresee said:


> Did you do a CD of covers or originals?
> 
> I personally have avoided doing a covers CD, even though I'd love to, partly because I'm lazy and partly because I'm greedy. Maybe 80% lazy, 20% greed. Lazy, because I don't want to have to track down all the publishers who own the copyrights to those songs I want to record and figure out how to pay them for the copies of their songs I'm going to press. And greedy because, well, I don't want to have to pay them.
> 
> You?


Original songs. There was a time way back when you used to bang out demos of cover songs to get a cover band booked.

I wouldn't waste time doing that in a studio anymore. No, I wrote, produced, recorded and released the CD with my own funds.


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> I guess we disagree on the whole point of mastering. To me the two most important parts of mastering are that you have an independent set of ears assess and tweak the mixes and that you have a room/system that reveals everything (i.e. The flaws in the mixers's playback system). To have the same guy mix and master your project just compounds whatever shortcomings your mix has rather than fixing them. To me, if your mixer is doing the mastering, you're not really getting it mastered.
> 
> ...and, honestly, the talent of the mixer is irrelevant to that particular point. I don't care if Chris Lord Alge was doing my mix, I still wouldn't want him mastering it.


I don't recall saying or implying that the same facility must be used to record and master the project, although I don't necesarily find any fault in that. If you trust the engineer to record the tracks, why wouldn't he or she be able to master it? 

Sometimes we get far too caught up in the technical details. What matters most to me is the content.

Quite frankly, it's MY ears that matter most to me, and even when mastering, I'm very much in the equation.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> Here's the key. I'll try to rephrase what I've tried to say about six or seven times in this thread already...
> 
> If you are recording the CD for a sense of self-satisfaction (i.e. to press 1,000 copies to sell to friends and familiy), then yes, your ears are the only ones that matter. In that case, a budget of $2,500 for a full production from start to finish including "mastering" may be quite workable and quite sensible. If you make your living as a recording and touring artist, though, you'd best count on between $10k and $20k (including _proper_ mastering). At that point _your_ ears are not the only ones that matter. Of course, there are a ton of other factors - are you a solo acoustic act or a 15 piece post-avant-prog-rock orchestra? These numbers are very ballpark.
> 
> You seem to be coming at this as a hobbiest who can't see the other side. I'm coming at this as someone who has been on both sides, including having been the co-owner of a commercial recording facility, an engineer/producer, a indie record label owner and one who has represented both up and coming indie acts and major label artists. I do have some perspective on this.



No disrespect intended, but again, things are not always black and white. I'll spare you reciting my CV but a "hobbyist" would probably not include someone who's college course was Applied Music and who spent eleven years touring full time, as well as having taught both private lessons and classes at the community college level.

I'm sharing my opinions. That doesn't make yours any less valid, but there are lots of ways to skin a cat (why are cats always the ones skinned?).


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## torndownunit

nkjanssen said:


> Here's the key. I'll try to rephrase what I've tried to say about six or seven times in this thread already...
> 
> If you are recording the CD for a sense of self-satisfaction (i.e. to press 1,000 copies to sell to friends and familiy), then yes, your ears are the only ones that matter. In that case, a budget of $2,500 for a full production from start to finish including "mastering" may be quite workable and quite sensible. If you make your living as a recording and touring artist, though, you'd best count on between $10k and $20k (including _proper_ mastering). At that point _your_ ears are not the only ones that matter. Of course, there are a ton of other factors - are you a solo acoustic act or a 15 piece post-avant-prog-rock orchestra? These numbers are very ballpark.
> 
> You seem to be coming at this as a hobbiest who can't see the other side. I'm coming at this as someone who has been on both sides, including having been the co-owner of a commercial recording facility, an engineer/producer, a indie record label owner and one who has represented both up and coming indie acts and major label artists. I do have some perspective on this.


You are welcome to your prespective and your opinion. My point is just that things are rapidly changing. What was the norm even 5 years ago is not that norm now. Every year home recording technology and the affordability drastically changes. The people learning to create music using this technology are a whole other breed of engineer. Whether that's good or bad is a whole other subject matter. But I just can't agree with you that 'proper mastering' automatically means a $20,00 budget nowadays. There are people with the same knowledge and same equipment as in the 'big' studios doing the same job from their personal studios for less money. They have less overhead, less staff, and can charge less money. And they work this way by choice i most cases. The definition of a 'home studio' has completely changed as the technology has changed. 

I respect your knowledge, but I just agree with Milkman that it's not a black and white issue anymore. There are major label recordings released that were done in 'home' studios now. I am not saying the majority are, but that there is the capability to do it now, and that I feel that's the direction things are going.

This doesn't even touch on CD manufacturing costs which are a fraction of what they used to be. Especially in volume. Plus, while online sales are still an emerging technology, some bands are making money through that method.

No offense to anyone, but the 'industry experts' are experts on a industry that is playing a frantic game of catchup. The main reason why is that industry can't accept or adapt to change, and fight it every step of the way.


----------



## torndownunit

P.s. when a conversation in a thread gets to the point where someone goes the route of pointing out someone's typos as an argument, it usually means the end of the thread is near.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## bagpipe

nkjanssen said:


> .......................


Why do you keep posting these? Am I missing something ?

.......................


----------



## Milkman

bagpipe said:


> Why do you keep posting these? Am I missing something ?
> 
> .......................


That may be a sign that he posted something and then decided it wasn't appropriate and was unable to delete it. I could be wrong.

Look, I'm sorry to ruffle anyone's feathers. Let's just say, just because things used to be done a standard way, doesn't mean that's the only way it can be done effectively.

Things are changing and changing quickly.

Albums used to take months and in some cases YEARS to produce and the cost for top studios used to be more than $100 an hour. I remember paying $150 an hour at Nimbus Nine. It was a great studio with highly skilled engineers and it was a thrill to sit in the same performance room as the guys in the original Alice Cooper band when they recorded those legendary albums with Bob Ezrin.

BUT

I'm more proud of the results I got in a modest Pro Tools studio with a 16 track interface.

Mastering is the same really. It's nothing magical. It's a process where you eq the overall mix and it really makes a huge difference but it can be done without selling a kidney.


----------



## Steadfastly

My father-in-law had one made from a concert that he and a friend did. The minimum quantity that could be make was 600 CD's and I think it cost them just under $1000.00. That included everything include the enclosures for each CD, the Jacket and the engineering and recording.

If you are interested, I could get the phone number from him and let you know.


----------



## Guitar101

I found this on the internet. Here's one example of today's rates for recording.

RATES: Local Band Demo Special: For a limited time, we will be offering a special block rate. 10 hours for $400.

Here is how it works:
1. You ask for the special block rate.
2. You do not have to use the 10 hours in one session. They can be spread out over a couple days. 
3. If you go over the 10 hours, additional hours will be billed at the block price.
4. If you don't use all 10 hours, it still costs $400. (You knew there was a catch, but it is hard to do anything in much less than 10 hours)
5. The block has to be paid for in full on the first session date.

Studio time: Recording and mixing including engineer, instruments, amps and full use of the facility, Please call for a quote . Reasonable set up time is not billed. 
INTERNET MIXING RATES
With the growing popularity of do-it-yourself recording, we have been getting more and more indie mix projects from all over the world. These are unattended sessions. You send me the tracks, we send you mp3's for your approval. When the project is done and paid for, we send you the mixes in the format of your choosing via FTP server or on a CD via parcel post. 

Mixing from your tracks: $200 to $500 per song, depending on track count, production size, and track condition. This includes light editing. Album packages available. Call or email for estimate.

Replacing and/or mixing drum tracks: $100 to $200 per song, depending on track count and track condition. Light editing included. 

Tracks are accepted via FTP server, data CD, or data DVD.
Please call or email us with questions. We are always happy to help you find a solution that fits your needs and budget.


----------



## Slowfinger

This is an interesting thread. Thanks everyone for sharing.
Here's my two cents worth based on a couple of professional recording experiences as well as 20 something years worth of my own home recording.
Hourly rates or block time, or so much per song? Those costs are somewhat fixed. What can decrease costs and improve quality is making sure everyone in the band knows their parts. I can't overemphasize this enough as my band found out in the last year while recording. Even though we have detailed song sheets we didn't practice enough before laying the beds. Yes we got great drum tracks and killer tones on bass and guitars but.....things got hairy when the guys started getting fancy and inventing new parts....meaning the next guy to go in for his tracks found something different from rehearsal that didn't sound good with his part. Even simple things like a guitar and bass riff part that sounded okay jamming, just didn't work for the studio. I was last to lay down my rythym and lead lines and I had to invent new stuff on the fly that would mesh with the tracks laid down already. It was frustrating for me and the engineer, and a total time waster. You must become your own producer and pre-produce your songs until it becomes nitpicking. The recording engineer said it is such a relief when a band comes through and everybody gets their part down in a few takes. That leaves him more time to polish the mix, do remixes, etc., and to redo parts or record any new parts that come about by inspiration.
In a nutshell. Practice practice practice. Everyone must play it the way it was written; all from the same page. 
The next most important skill to save money in the studio is timing. My band was sloppier than we thought. Particularly myself (habit of playing behind the beat). Timing was the #1 reason for multiple takes. At home record your performances and really go over them for timing issues then practice those parts untill they are tight and on the beat. 
You'll make the engineer a happy friend and your bandmates will feel it was a job well done. The frustration level will drop and the process will move along quickly. Disagreements over artistic material in the studio put the brakes on everything but the clock/payment meter and just bring everyone down from what promised to be a fantastic creative experience.
Regards
Bruce


----------



## torndownunit

Slowfinger said:


> This is an interesting thread. Thanks everyone for sharing.
> Here's my two cents worth based on a couple of professional recording experiences as well as 20 something years worth of my own home recording.
> Hourly rates or block time, or so much per song? Those costs are somewhat fixed. What can decrease costs and improve quality is making sure everyone in the band knows their parts. I can't overemphasize this enough as my band found out in the last year while recording. Even though we have detailed song sheets we didn't practice enough before laying the beds. Yes we got great drum tracks and killer tones on bass and guitars but.....things got hairy when the guys started getting fancy and inventing new parts....meaning the next guy to go in for his tracks found something different from rehearsal that didn't sound good with his part. Even simple things like a guitar and bass riff part that sounded okay jamming, just didn't work for the studio. I was last to lay down my rythym and lead lines and I had to invent new stuff on the fly that would mesh with the tracks laid down already. It was frustrating for me and the engineer, and a total time waster. You must become your own producer and pre-produce your songs until it becomes nitpicking. The recording engineer said it is such a relief when a band comes through and everybody gets their part down in a few takes. That leaves him more time to polish the mix, do remixes, etc., and to redo parts or record any new parts that come about by inspiration.
> In a nutshell. Practice practice practice. Everyone must play it the way it was written; all from the same page.
> The next most important skill to save money in the studio is timing. My band was sloppier than we thought. Particularly myself (habit of playing behind the beat). Timing was the #1 reason for multiple takes. At home record your performances and really go over them for timing issues then practice those parts untill they are tight and on the beat.
> You'll make the engineer a happy friend and your bandmates will feel it was a job well done. The frustration level will drop and the process will move along quickly. Disagreements over artistic material in the studio put the brakes on everything but the clock/payment meter and just bring everyone down from what promised to be a fantastic creative experience.
> Regards
> Bruce


Ya nothing brings out problems you didn't know you had like recording lol. After our last session, we all started jamming with a metronome at practice on songs where we can use it. Our drummer is great, but has the habit of gradually speeding up through songs at times. We didn't really notice it until we were in the studio (our music is pretty high energy, live oriented stuff), and we ended up using click tracks. It's a good idea to use them anyway, but we weren't prepared to use one and had to do run through some of the tunes a few times to get used to to it. Wasted time.


----------



## Slowfinger

I hear you about the click track. Our drummer is better than pretty good and he still wanders. Some of the songs we recorded have tempo changes and free time endings so the drummer (who put up the cash) didn't want to use the click. Live and learn. In our case we didn't do enough pre-production. If the engineer is going to produce as well, the price goes up. One reason an engineer will assume that task and take the project out of the bands hands is because the band doesn't know their material well enough. Things like endings, breaks, and such. At some piont the engineer will realize this and will take over and organize the recording of tracks and tell the musicians to play simpler parts if they can't throw down in a timely fashion. That happenned to us. We had everything down but as I mentioned the first guys to track after the drums decided to play a little differently. I actually had to dump the signature riff-break in a song (I wrote it) because the bass player played something totally different. It was supposed to be a unison line. Not from the same page at all. So you end up sitting there in the studio learning a new part and trying to get your fingers to do the unfamiliar. 
I would do it again though. LOL..... Pre-produce. Pre-produce. Pre-produce. Save time and money.


----------



## Milkman

Slowfinger said:


> I hear you about the click track. Our drummer is better than pretty good and he still wanders. Some of the songs we recorded have tempo changes and free time endings so the drummer (who put up the cash) didn't want to use the click. Live and learn. In our case we didn't do enough pre-production. If the engineer is going to produce as well, the price goes up. One reason an engineer will assume that task and take the project out of the bands hands is because the band doesn't know their material well enough. Things like endings, breaks, and such. At some piont the engineer will realize this and will take over and organize the recording of tracks and tell the musicians to play simpler parts if they can't throw down in a timely fashion. That happenned to us. We had everything down but as I mentioned the first guys to track after the drums decided to play a little differently. I actually had to dump the signature riff-break in a song (I wrote it) because the bass player played something totally different. It was supposed to be a unison line. Not from the same page at all. So you end up sitting there in the studio learning a new part and trying to get your fingers to do the unfamiliar.
> I would do it again though. LOL..... Pre-produce. Pre-produce. Pre-produce. Save time and money.



I agree 100%. Preproduction is one of the most important steps and will save you a ton of time and money. That doesn't mean you can't experiment and try new ideas once you're in the studio but doing take after take because someone doesn't have their parts down or because the band just isn't tight on the material is a waste.


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Yeah! Learn to play to a click track (of some type). If the timing is not spot on, everything else becomes harder. You can play with the timing when live. Also, after you have sung that last note, or strummed that last chord....stay quiet until the engineer says it's OK....nothing like having a chord fading out and before it is done having someone blurt out "THAT WAS GREAT!" ruin the take.


----------



## torndownunit

Milkman said:


> I agree 100%. Preproduction is one of the most important steps and will save you a ton of time and money. That doesn't mean you can't experiment and try new ideas once you're in the studio but doing take after take because someone doesn't have their parts down or because the band just isn't tight on the material is a waste.


That's the great thing about all the affordable home recording gear on a hobbyist level right now. You can use Garageband and a few decent mics and cut pretty good basic demos of songs now. I love doing this as a form of pre-production because it allows you to listen to the tracks from a different perspective. But, it allows you to hear them in a decent recorded form. It's great for working on arranging and fine tuning songs to get ready for the final recording.


----------



## david henman

...here's what works for me. i record completely raw tracks on a korg d3200, being careful to avoid any and all processing. then i turn those tracks over to a qualified engineer for mixing and mastering. the only other cost involved is duplication/packaging.

one unintended and huge benefit of this is that, because there is no processing involved, we have learned how to get great sounding recordings without it, so that any processing done by the engineer becomes icing on an already delicious cake.


----------



## mbmdk

hey man, it totally depends.. I think you get what you pay for.. if really lucky, you could find a good deal and still get a good product, but I find you usually need to spend a lot to get a good product. My band just did our debut album and the whole thing cost about 25 thousand dollars everything included. Seems like a hell of a lot but it was totally worth it because we got exactly what we wanted and more. Without great production, your music will be automatically put into a box that is almost impossible to get out of.. good luck !!


----------



## david henman

mbmdk said:


> Without great production, your music will be automatically put into a box that is almost impossible to get out of.. good luck !!


...i wholeheartedly disagree. with the exception of mainstream pop and country, it's about the music - the song and the performance. the production is secondary. take a listen to the drum sounds on practically any blue rodeo track.


----------



## Milkman

david henman said:


> ...i wholeheartedly disagree. with the exception of mainstream pop and country, it's about the music - the song and the performance. the production is secondary. take a listen to the drum sounds on practically any blue rodeo track.



"it's about the music"

NO amount of money will change this simple truth.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## GuitarsCanada

nkjanssen said:


> A question for anyone who thinks that poor production is no impediament to the commercial success of a album, or that it's easy to get top level production, tracking, editing, mixing, mastering and pressing for a full-album-length commercial release for under $2k... How many of you are actual professional recording artists?
> 
> And, no, studying music at the local community college or playing in a Pink Floyd cover band doesn't qualify you as a professional recording artist. I'm taking about making a significiant portion of your current living from music sales and/or licensing.


I remember a dude that gave me a cassette tape way back of his recorded music. He said he went into the studio with a case of beer and two hundred dollars. It sounded like it.


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Mitchell, Ontario, and people close....we are looking for folks to come out and play at Random Acts of Music. We are thinking in exchange for you coming out and playing for the people, you will get a recording of the performance in either a quickly mixed down stereo CD, or as individual raw tracks (.wav files) that you can use at home with your own software (pro tools, ableton) to mix/master yourself. The genre is mostley country/folk type stuff, but there is always room for other stuff (as long as it's not too heavy). You can get up to 20 tracks recorded live off the floor (I guess you will be getting the applause recorded too). PM me if interested. There are no fees either way, this is being done for the love of the music and as support and entertainment of the local music scene. It also provides us (me) with valuable experience in gathering tracks.


----------



## Guitar101

nkjanssen said:


> And, no, studying music at the local community college or playing in a Pink Floyd cover band doesn't qualify you as a professional recording artist. I'm taking about making a significiant portion of your current living from music sales and/or licensing.


Here we go again. No, I don't or did I ever make my living as a professional recording artist but I am a graduate of the "School of Hard Knocks". Lets say I spend $25000 to professionally produce a fantastic CD and it goes nowhere because the songs are simply not very good. Can a great production make a difference in this circumstance. In my opinion "no" Does the production company care. I don't think so, they got paid.
Spend less, get experience, take it from there. We all know it's not *what you know* but *who you know*. Can you give us any names of well known people you've helped along the way?


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Guitar101

nkjanssen said:


> I've certainly worked for well-known recording artists. I can't give out names, though, no.
> Actually, forget it... I told myself I wasn't going to get back into this, and I'm not.
> You guys have fun hashing this out.


If your out, I'm out. Without you, it wouldn't be any fun. Try not to to take us too seriously. Let's face it, this forum is entertainment. That's why I haven't been practicing my guitar as much since I joined. Take care.


----------



## Milkman

Originally Posted by nkjanssen 
A question for anyone who thinks that poor production is no impediament to the commercial success of a album, or that it's easy to get top level production, tracking, editing, mixing, mastering and pressing for a full-album-length commercial release for under $2k... How many of you are actual professional recording artists?

And, no, studying music at the local community college or playing in a Pink Floyd cover band doesn't qualify you as a professional recording artist. I'm taking about making a significiant portion of your current living from music sales and/or licensing.


LMAO, Wow, could that be any more condescending?

Funny stuff.


----------



## Phatchrisrules

Well my band went into the studio and recorded our first real CD for $950, and now the packaging and stuff is going to run us $750 give or take a twenty. We recorded at a home studio in Hamilton (where we're from), and frankly the quality is much better than we could have ever hoped. We're poor university students in our early 20's, and anything has to sound better than our home recordings. I think as someone touched on earlier in the thread, it's knowing your songs. We practiced like crazy, and as a result we played two tracks (except for one where I, the guitarist, kept screwing up for some ungodly reason) and took the best take. We also did one two vocal tracks and took the best of each one. The key was we knew what we wanted, we booked 16 hours of time, 8 hours to record and 8 hours for them to mix and master, they gave us a bonus hour on the vocals. 

So we recorded everything in one day and I think it sounds fantastic. You can have a listen if you like, but it came out just as I imagined it to sound. We wanted to do it like the punk/grunge bands of yesteryear and get everything done in as little as time as possible because we have no money, just like them. I'll link you to the myspace and you guys can have listen and judge for yourself on the quality. Also for the CD's were getting 500 CDs, with a single fold booklet and a CD sticker, and a graphic artist to throw it together for us for about $600, we buy the blank CD's and cases and put it together ourselves to save some coin, which I'm fine doing. I realize its going to be tough to make money off of this, but if we can break even I would be more than happy.

Here is the link: Autistic Love | Free Music, Tour Dates, Photos, Videos and the studio is Hive Studio's, I would recommend them.


----------



## Phatchrisrules

whoops...double posted.


----------



## Milkman

I think this is similar to asking what does a car cost, or what does a house cost? To think there's no difference in the product from a $2500. project and a $25,000. project is unreasonable, however there's a lot of range between those two levels and the concept of diminishing returns is as much in play with recording as it is with most things.

Ultimately the quality of the songs and performances is the most important element in my opinion.


----------

