Recording pricing

[Mikedrummer]

How much would it generally cost to get a 4 track demo CD with professional quality production?

[Seafroggys]

Many places offer special rates for 4 track demos.

Here's a couple of things to consider. Generally you can say it will take an hour of recording for every minute of song. If you have 4 4 minute songs, that's 16 hours. This is a conservative estimate. If you have your parts nailed, track it live and nail it in 2-3 takes, then overdub vocals and solos and whatnot, you could probably do an entire song in two hours, making it an 8 hour session, which seems pretty good for a 4 track demo.

You'll have to check studio rates in your area. You probably don't want high end studios, but at the same time don't go with the guys that charge $10 an hour, they're probably hobbyists who have prosumer gear that you could probably buy, and not have a lot of faith in their skills, which also says something. Go for the $20-40/hour studios. That's roughly $250 for the 8 hour session.

[Aus_rock_god]

Depends on the studio and how you do it.

If you talking demo sh!t, and you've rehursed everything and you're tight, everyone just running through the songs at the same time (with vocals separately, just to make them sound nice) then you could get it as cheep as $100.

Top-of-the-range studios can cost about $250 an hour. Most of the places that have rehursal rooms attached to the studio go for about $50 an hour.

Also, I have to point out the difference between a demo and an EP. A demo is usually a pre-production version of your music that is used as a reference when you finally record your professional version.

An EP is the professional quality recording you're talking about.

If you want a really pro recording, I highly recommend doing a lot of sh!tty pre-production recordings first (where no-one really gives a f*ck about the perfect take), to hear how the song sounds as a recording and nut out any studio tricks you want to do.

Makes a pro-recording less stressful and a hell of a lot cheaper.

And remember, a cheep studio is likely to have similar gear as a pro studio. The difference is the technician.

You can hire a 'hobbiest' for $10 an hour, and just have the tech sliding volumes up and down if you know what you're doing, mix and master the recording yourself (or get it professionally mixed) and get the same results as a top-end studio.

[Motleyguy]

Depends on the studio and how you do it.

If you talking demo sh!t, and you've rehursed everything and you're tight, everyone just running through the songs at the same time (with vocals separately, just to make them sound nice) then you could get it as cheep as $100.

Top-of-the-range studios can cost about $250 an hour. Most of the places that have rehursal rooms attached to the studio go for about $50 an hour.

Also, I have to point out the difference between a demo and an EP. A demo is usually a pre-production version of your music that is used as a reference when you finally record your professional version.

An EP is the professional quality recording you're talking about.

If you want a really pro recording, I highly recommend doing a lot of sh!tty pre-production recordings first (where no-one really gives a f*ck about the perfect take), to hear how the song sounds as a recording and nut out any studio tricks you want to do.

Makes a pro-recording less stressful and a hell of a lot cheaper.

And remember, a cheep studio is likely to have similar gear as a pro studio. The difference is the technician.

You can hire a 'hobbiest' for $10 an hour, and just have the tech sliding volumes up and down if you know what you're doing, mix and master the recording yourself (or get it professionally mixed) and get the same results as a top-end studio.

I disagree completely. A cheap studio will not have much in common with a pro studio. Quality mic pre's, quality processing, and a high end console are a few things coming to mind that you will definitely find in a pro studio that you will more than likely not find in a cheap studio... Not to mention the extensive mic selection carried in most professional environments, that a hobbyist, or DIY can simply not afford.

A mix done by yourself, or by a hobbyist will absolutely sound far different than a mix done by a professional. Years of experience, and the trial and error that go along with it, make all the difference in mixing, and I highly doubt someone working for $10/hour has that.

[Tripp_chaos]

I agree and disagree with you I know someone who charges 20 and hour and there recordings sound garbage whereas my cousin got charged 10 for a really good recordings I wouldn't base it solely on the money I'd try and get some samples of work from the tech like pre and post production material or something to that effect to see/hear what they can do... Basically what I'm saying is I could take out a huge-*** loan buy all the best gear I can get my hands on and stick my buddy who knows nothing about recording behind the desk and be like well we got the equipment so we must be worth $25 and hour... Right...

[Seafroggys]

This is my general philsophy on how to approach this:

A high-end studio with the best consoles, preamps, mic locker, rack effects is generally gonna be run by a high-class engineer. The nail in the coffin would be the acoustics of the studio. If he has a tracking room with killer acoustics, that means he knows his **** and either knew how to design a studio, has enough faith in his work to know to get someone professional to design it, or bought it knowing what to look for. Very rarely you should doubt their talent. They charge high not to cover the costs of their gear and overhead, but to cover their talent as well. They didn't get that far through shoddy work, and it would be super rare to see some random rich guy setup a studio with that high quality.

As far as the "budget" studios go (what I would consider sub $50 an hour), you have to look at several things. People who record for a living have to make enough to cover the cost of their gear, the cost of overhead, the cost of their lifestyle, and maybe a little extra. If you think about it, that's a lot of money, considering they probably don't do 40 hour work weeks on average. They might have some slow weeks, they might have a big gig that lasts several days and goes 60+ hours. But in general its probably less than 40 hours a week. Their costs have to reflect that.

The people that really undercut the pricing market, the ones that charge $10-15 an hour - I try and try to understand how the hell do they do it. Considering they sometimes have fairly decent gear (usually some fairly decent UA preamps, Neve converters, and a decent mic locker with some high end mics), though often times they have substandard gear, **** that I won't even touch (Behringer, Audix Fusion mics, MXL - I know Moseph disagrees with me on that one). This is what I'm guessing at how they do this:

1 - Pirate software (charge $10 an hour, and you have the $5000 Waves Diamond Bundle? Yeah....)
2 - Work a 'day' job, maybe even full time, to pay for everything so they don't have to charge so much
3 - Not have much faith in their skills
4 - Terrible business model

If 1 in correct, don't even work for those scumbags. I mean, pirating for personal use is one thing, but pirating for use in a commercial business where you make profits? That's pretty damn low, and that's not fair to ANYONE!

If 2 is correct, this can be lots of things. This pretty much puts them in the hobbyist category. Their availability to record for you will be very limited, and this hurts the consumer a lot. They haven't had the time to practice enough, to get very good at what they do (though this could very well be false). And another assumption is the fact that if they have to have a day job to continue to fund their studio, that means that they haven't had a lot of clients because of their lack of skills. I mean, I am working right now to pay for the studio, but I'm cutting back and going part time when I go commercial, hopefully weening off the day job in 6 months or so. If this guy has been in business for a year or two and still on the day job, then maybe you shouldn't consider him.

If 3 is correct, then you probably shouldn't use him anyway. This thought comes from "oh I'm not as good as these guys that charge $25 an hour, so I'll just be budget and charge less." This is similar thinking to car repair shops. The other day, I saw a place that was called "Budget Car Repair" and laughed. Sure you may have saved some money in the meantime, but in the end you'll hate the decision as a waste of money.

If 4 is correct, well, its their own damn fault.

[Moseph]

Lots of good thoughts in this thread. I do want to point out that the distinctions between the "pro" studio and the "hobbyist" studio are far more blurry with respect to gear/skills. I would say that a better discriminator would be whether or not the engineer does it as their primary profession. Granted this doesn't tell you anything about their actual skills or results, but even if you limit yourself to the "pro" community I think you'll find rather quickly that 50+% of the engineers out there aren't all that great.

The one piece of advice I can give to you is to seek out as many studios/engineers as you can, and get a demo of no less than 2 tracks (preferably 3-4). Assuming you feel comfortable with the engineer when speaking with them, pick the one that you feel has the best-sounding demo within your price range.

If they can't produce any tracks as a demo for you, I wouldn't bother with them unless they're willing to work for free.


I disagree completely. A cheap studio will not have much in common with a pro studio. Quality mic pre's, quality processing, and a high end console are a few things coming to mind that you will definitely find in a pro studio that you will more than likely not find in a cheap studio... Not to mention the extensive mic selection carried in most professional environments, that a hobbyist, or DIY can simply not afford.

A mix done by yourself, or by a hobbyist will absolutely sound far different than a mix done by a professional. Years of experience, and the trial and error that go along with it, make all the difference in mixing, and I highly doubt someone working for $10/hour has that.

You're sort of glossing over that the same project done by any two engineers, even in identical facilities is more than likely gonna sound pretty different. Gear lockers are getting stupid big on the home market. I've seen home studios that make my mobile rig look like the fly-by-night operation I alway intended it to be without issue. They're stocking Neumann, Grace and Avalon at Guitar Center, so obviously somebody is buying the higher-end stuff.


This is my general philsophy on how to approach this:

A high-end studio with the best consoles, preamps, mic locker, rack effects is generally gonna be run by a high-class engineer. The nail in the coffin would be the acoustics of the studio. If he has a tracking room with killer acoustics, that means he knows his **** and either knew how to design a studio, has enough faith in his work to know to get someone professional to design it, or bought it knowing what to look for. Very rarely you should doubt their talent. They charge high not to cover the costs of their gear and overhead, but to cover their talent as well. They didn't get that far through shoddy work, and it would be super rare to see some random rich guy setup a studio with that high quality.

Maybe, but you can never be too sure. Recently in my area there was some kettle-stirring over a studio run by a young guy who apparently inherited a fortune and set out to try and live the "producer's dream life." From what I gather about the situation, he had all the gear and could use the jargon, but at the end of the day he didn't know what he was doing, treated the clients poorly, and employed sub-par staff onsite. The moral of the story I guess is to always do a little bit of homework (and a good professional engineer will make it easy for you): see a list of past projects, hear their demo, be comfortable with how they act/speak and what they know, check out their facilities, etc.


As far as the "budget" studios go (what I would consider sub $50 an hour), you have to look at several things. People who record for a living have to make enough to cover the cost of their gear, the cost of overhead, the cost of their lifestyle, and maybe a little extra. If you think about it, that's a lot of money, considering they probably don't do 40 hour work weeks on average. They might have some slow weeks, they might have a big gig that lasts several days and goes 60+ hours. But in general its probably less than 40 hours a week. Their costs have to reflect that.

Also not a great indicator: audio/media production is very much a "luxury" industry in that it is very heavily affected by the surrounding conditions. In my area (Mid-Atlantic USA), the economy is starting to show and a lot of engineers, even the very good ones, are starting to cut prices down to the $40-60/hour range just to help keep busy.


The people that really undercut the pricing market, the ones that charge $10-15 an hour - I try and try to understand how the hell do they do it. Considering they sometimes have fairly decent gear (usually some fairly decent UA preamps, Neve converters, and a decent mic locker with some high end mics), though often times they have substandard gear, **** that I won't even touch (Behringer, Audix Fusion mics, MXL - I know Moseph disagrees with me on that one).

I do, and here's why for the benefit of the TS: it is my opinion that until a certain level of proficiency is reached, the equipment is sort of incidental to the process provided that it performs its intended purpose well and with suitable technical characteristics. I say this because I think the recordings I've done now sound absolutely better with my own gear than other recordings I did in a very well-equipped studio when I was just starting out.

There's also a perspective issue: UA Preamps and Neve Converters are considered "sub-par" to some high-paid facilities out there. Also keep in mind that one of the most ubiquitous "budget" mics, the Shure SM57, is also one of the most ubiquitous "studio" mics in the world. Even the companies you've listed have some real shining examples (Behringer makes a decent DI box, Audix mics are gaining market share, and the MXL 990 and SP1 have both gotten stellar reviews from industry professionals).

To the original TS, I would say that the gear is secondary to the results. So check on past results.


2 - Work a 'day' job, maybe even full time, to pay for everything so they don't have to charge so much

...

If 2 is correct, this can be lots of things. This pretty much puts them in the hobbyist category. Their availability to record for you will be very limited, and this hurts the consumer a lot.

Not necessarily, remember that a lot of the low-budget community is composed of musicians who have regular day jobs/school as well. A lot of the time the schedules will align fairly well because of that. Because the client can choose their studio/engineer, they don't need to work with somebody who can't accomodate their schedule to their liking if they don't want to.

They haven't had the time to practice enough, to get very good at what they do (though this could very well be false). And another assumption is the fact that if they have to have a day job to continue to fund their studio, that means that they haven't had a lot of clients because of their lack of skills. I mean, I am working right now to pay for the studio, but I'm cutting back and going part time when I go commercial, hopefully weening off the day job in 6 months or so. If this guy has been in business for a year or two and still on the day job, then maybe you shouldn't consider him.

This is a fundamental philosophical difference between us. I have no intention of leaving my regular day job. The benefits of maintaining a separate work life from audio on top of better pay/benefits/hours/regularity far outweigh the ideals of living off my studio for me. I know there are other engineers out there with the same ideas. I don't think availability is a good indicator on skill level, professionalism, or work ethic.

[Seafroggys]

For the record, I didn't bash Audix in general, I'm actually a huge fan. I just referred to the Audix Fusion mics, which are one of those cheap drum mic packs, since they are pretty popular.

[Moseph]

For the record, I didn't bash Audix in general, I'm actually a huge fan. I just referred to the Audix Fusion mics, which are one of those cheap drum mic packs, since they are pretty popular.

My mistake.

[Seafroggys]

I can see working a part time job and doing studio work the rest of the time (this is what I plan on doing actually). Here's an issue though...let's say you work full-time, but in retail. Usually this means you work on weekends. What if a potential client wants to book 16 hours over the weekend to record an EP? I guess it may not apply to every industry, but there are plenty that could easily interfere with studio time.

And really, I think I said in there that it was an assumption, not a necessary truth.

Moseph also made a great point....many budget studios will buy a Neumann U87 to impress people. This one studio that spammed me to go to their studio when I made a craigslist post hiring musicians to work on my album in my home studio (yes, they actually e-mailed me telling me to record at their place instead) implied that they use their U87 for advertising purposes but use the bulk of their work with their modded pair of RODE K2 mics, which are about the 1/4 the cost of the U87, and that they prefer the sound of it.

(actually, I should post our e-mail conversation that we had, it was pretty hilarious)

I actually like my engineering skills. Granted I still have a long ways to go, but I have the confidence to charge in the $20-40 range assuming I have the gear. Gear is not important, its the engineer, but clients look at gear listing.

[Mikedrummer]

so yeah I meant to say EP

rough price ranges then? as in, the averages and the minimum

[Seafroggys]

If you read, I gave you a pretty good estimate.

[Mikedrummer]

$250 isn't a good estimate to me

I want a second opinion!

[Seafroggys]

Well what's a good estimate to you? Apparently you already know what you're looking for if you know what's a good estimate and not, so why are you asking this question?

[Tripp_chaos]

I think there looking for a better estimate to a better price range and not really knowing what there looking for... Or just confusion on the hourly rate compared to the gross-rate...
or if one of the guys from around your area on here would help not that I'm saying they "should" just saying if you ask nicely you might get a down-home(forum?) thing...
/confusing rant

[Seafroggys]

Well, the lowest you are looking at is free.

It is a very regional based market for sure. Since Portland is over saturated with studios, we have a ton of the $10-15 studios, making it nearly impossible to enter the market.

[Tripp_chaos]

ah I'm in a location that even google maps doesn't recognize so there is the perfect opportunity/worst opportunity to open shop and the closet place charges $40/hr and they suck but it's the only place within an easy travel distance that doesn't cost 100+/hr... + a good percentage of the bands around here are pretty shotty (high school "hey you play an instrument me too, lets start a band, what you don't know how to play? me neither that will work perfect" and I'm not sure if they are going to pay me) I'd love to go into a business with like 2 other people that know what there doing to A. increase productivity B. Financial solution C. being able to get a larger studio and have more of an option I guess sry off topic and btw Mike your smiley face scares me like I asked it if it killed someone and its saying no but I can't trust it because of the expression

[Aus_rock_god]

$250 isn't a good estimate to me

I want a second opinion!

How quickly do you think you can do it? And be realistic.

And keep in mind, that:

1. It's a very rare that someone nails their first take.

2. Recording multi-tracked is completely different to playing in a band. Playing at a constant speed that isn't as elastic as a live situation will f*ck with your head for a little while.

To record a 3 minute song, one instrument at a time, could take a good 6 hours (if you do it fast).

Prepare your pocket dude, I know guys that have spent well over $3,000 on a 5 track recording.

In that respect though, if you find someone who likes your music and belives in it, you might be able to cut a deal with them (for example: pay them off after the CD sells).

[Moseph]

$250 isn't a good estimate to me

I want a second opinion!

Okay, this is the answer I'd give if you were considering hiring me.

ASSUMPTIONS
[01] You are a 4-piece rock ensemble, with 1 guitar, 1 bass, a 5-piece/3-cymbal drum kit and lead singer. You are playing some form of relatively mainstream rock music. It is not metal, and it is not electronic. I only single those genres out because they tend to have different setup time requirements.

[02] You have a location where your band practices regularly.

[03] You consider the work I've done in the past to be "pro quality", which is a term I despise as vague and indefinite.

[04] You don't care about the gear, and only the results when you determine "pro quality."

If any of those assumptions are incorrect, let me know.

I don't have a studio space: I designed my business model to be an on-location situation. This increases setup time for the recording equipment, but minimizes setup time for the band, since we would most likely be recording in your usual practice space.

I normally charge $15-20/hour, depending on varying factors. For the purposes of finding a "worst case" scenario, we'll assume I'm going to offer you my services for $20/hour. I charge accurately to the minute.

Setup normally takes about 1 hour, 20 minutes. Tear-down about 45 minutes. In other words, gear prep can be expected to be 2 hours if there are ZERO issues with install/strike down. 2 hours is 120 minutes.

If you're well-rehearsed, you can probably do a 3-minute song in just under 60 minutes. We'll add 30 minutes of slop time to each song to track lead vocals, other overdubs, and make minor edits: 90 minutes a song for 4 songs is 360 minutes. This assumes the band can play together well and that the overdubs and vocals can be capture in less than 2 full takes of the song.

Assume editing/mixing will be 3-5 hours per song, assuming the band has a sound in mind that they can effectively relay to me, or they just like what I do with it in the first place: 5 hours = 300 minutes. 300 min/song x 4 songs = 1200 minutes.

Add 30 minutes for DVD/CD burns and other incidental aspects of the process at the end of the session.

120 + 360 + 1200 + 30 = 1710 minutes.
$20/hour relates to $0.33 each minute

1710 min * $0.33/min = $564.30 for a "worst case" scenario with me. That does not include Mastering because I typically don't do Mastering (nor do I think it's always strictly necessary).

This is not a huge surprise for what you're talking about. Keep in mind that $564.30 will get you just barely enough to record 4 songs at high-profile studios. If you can find an engineer you like who has good knowledge and a comfortable degree of proficiency who is willing to record a 4-song EP of an amateur band start to finish through tracking/editing/mixing phases for less than $500, then you're going to want to give him a $100 bonus just to make sure you keep his favor.

[Tripp_chaos]

Yeah he's right about 85% of that information the other 15% is unknowing for you, But I'd only see the $100 on if they did a good job or they dealt with some of you/mates bs but that's a worst case and if you can do a quick setup excluding the techs work you can cut some time and if you can go in with a full knowledge of setup/teardown and how you want everything else to go down around the techs work...

[Aus_rock_god]

Okay, this is the answer I'd give if you were considering hiring me... and so on


Bravo good sir.

[Seafroggys]

Wow, it takes you that long to setup?

In my business model, I was considering 15-30 minute setup time.

[Tripp_chaos]

Isn't his setup mobile though causing to figure out the goods in the new area each time/or is that just worst case scenario?

[Seafroggys]

as for me, my rig is a rolling cart on wheels that has my computer, peripherials, and interface. Just slap my monitor on top and we're good to go. Mic setup would take the longest though. I figured it would probably take 20-30 minutes to get all the gear ready to go, and then setting levels and final placement would come later.

[Moseph]

Yeah he's right about 85% of that information the other 15% is unknowing for you, But I'd only see the $100 on if they did a good job or they dealt with some of you/mates bs but that's a worst case and if you can do a quick setup excluding the techs work you can cut some time and if you can go in with a full knowledge of setup/teardown and how you want everything else to go down around the techs work...

My basic point was that if you're thinking you can pay $250 for the results you want, expect to pay $350, and be happy if it's less than $500.

[Moseph]

Wow, it takes you that long to setup?

In my business model, I was considering 15-30 minute setup time.

as for me, my rig is a rolling cart on wheels that has my computer, peripherials, and interface. Just slap my monitor on top and we're good to go. Mic setup would take the longest though. I figured it would probably take 20-30 minutes to get all the gear ready to go, and then setting levels and final placement would come later.

(01) It looks like your setup is slightly more convenient than mine, since I use a laptop on top of the rack and an external hard drive. The tradeoff is that I can take my "small rig" (Laptop/hard-drive/E-mu 0404|USB/headphones) with me in a carry-on bag, so I can mix when I travel etc.

(02) Time builds up quickly. Also, that number includes gain staging/sound check and putting together the monitoring system (my clients will generally have live headphone feeds of everything).

Let's say it takes 3 minutes to place a microphone and 1 minute to check the placement and do sound check (those estimates are probably just below average). 4 minutes per mic x 16 mics gets you 64 minutes already. Then I have to install the monitoring system and get levels for the headphones on all the talent, which can take another 5-10 minutes based on the conditions of the room and where everyone will be performing. Factor in the unpacking of gear, unfolding of mic stands, cable management (to prevent trips, etc.), the computer setup/boot times (which are small, but not trivially small), and actual walking to complete the cabling and you get to 80 minutes very fast. Keep in mind that I'm generally concerned with more than 16 mics as well.


Isn't his setup mobile though causing to figure out the goods in the new area each time/or is that just worst case scenario?

This happens quite a bit. However, I typically will offer a "Meet & Greet" session that is free of an hourly rate so that I can be more efficient about setup later.

I should also point out that I don't charge for load-in/load-out, so that isn't included in my estimates.

[Tripp_chaos]

This happens quite a bit. However, I typically will offer a "Meet & Greet" session that is free of an hourly rate so that I can be more efficient about setup later.
You basically explained about this by what I meant with "the good in the new area" I think cabling usually takes up the most time depending on distances in the area, But I do agree with the mobile/part-mobile setup... Although I sometimes get the band to help a little bit with the stands/cables if there nice enough + it helps cut down studio time and saves a little bit {5 piece band + you(cables+stands)=-20/30 mins}... I'd still like to see your perm. setup in the other thread...

[Moseph]

I'm guessing based on your quote that this is all directed at me...

You basically explained about this by what I meant with "the good in the new area" I think cabling usually takes up the most time depending on distances in the area, But I do agree with the mobile/part-mobile setup... Although I sometimes get the band to help a little bit with the stands/cables if there nice enough + it helps cut down studio time and saves a little bit {5 piece band + you(cables+stands)=-20/30 mins}...

I allow the band to help as well, though I always give them a run-down of how I want them to handle my mics/cables/stands. Why? Well, if you remember this thread....

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=525779

I generally end up re-wrapping about half my cables at home after any given session anyway, but at least the mics/cables/stands are damaged once I've trained the client a little bit.

I'd still like to see your perm. setup in the other thread...

This thread?

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=566931

That's not really what that thread is all about. I was hoping to hear some cool results from as little gear as possible. I didn't want it to be a pissing contest over who's got the bigger gear locker.

One thing that I think is getting lost in translation is that my mobile rig is my permanent setup. Or rather, part of it. I don't have a treated/suitably large space for a "static" home studio, so my mobile rig(s) are my studio, and I'm still doing my mixes with headphone monitors and lots of cross-system listening. If pressed, I guess I could post my full gear locker in a different thread (we're sort of getting away from the original topic in this one).

[Tripp_chaos]

My bad just curious...

[Mikedrummer]

ah I'm in a location that even google maps doesn't recognize so there is the perfect opportunity/worst opportunity to open shop and the closet place charges $40/hr and they suck but it's the only place within an easy travel distance that doesn't cost 100+/hr... + a good percentage of the bands around here are pretty shotty (high school "hey you play an instrument me too, lets start a band, what you don't know how to play? me neither that will work perfect" and I'm not sure if they are going to pay me) I'd love to go into a business with like 2 other people that know what there doing to A. increase productivity B. Financial solution C. being able to get a larger studio and have more of an option I guess sry off topic and btw Mike your smiley face scares me like I asked it if it killed someone and its saying no but I can't trust it because of the expression

I really LOL'ed at your last sentence

But it's meant to be saying "Awessssooome!"

[Mikedrummer]

Okay, this is the answer I'd give if you were considering hiring me.

ASSUMPTIONS
[01] You are a 4-piece rock ensemble, with 1 guitar, 1 bass, a 5-piece/3-cymbal drum kit and lead singer. You are playing some form of relatively mainstream rock music. It is not metal, and it is not electronic. I only single those genres out because they tend to have different setup time requirements.

[02] You have a location where your band practices regularly.

[03] You consider the work I've done in the past to be "pro quality", which is a term I despise as vague and indefinite.

[04] You don't care about the gear, and only the results when you determine "pro quality."

If any of those assumptions are incorrect, let me know.

I don't have a studio space: I designed my business model to be an on-location situation. This increases setup time for the recording equipment, but minimizes setup time for the band, since we would most likely be recording in your usual practice space.

I normally charge $15-20/hour, depending on varying factors. For the purposes of finding a "worst case" scenario, we'll assume I'm going to offer you my services for $20/hour. I charge accurately to the minute.

Setup normally takes about 1 hour, 20 minutes. Tear-down about 45 minutes. In other words, gear prep can be expected to be 2 hours if there are ZERO issues with install/strike down. 2 hours is 120 minutes.

If you're well-rehearsed, you can probably do a 3-minute song in just under 60 minutes. We'll add 30 minutes of slop time to each song to track lead vocals, other overdubs, and make minor edits: 90 minutes a song for 4 songs is 360 minutes. This assumes the band can play together well and that the overdubs and vocals can be capture in less than 2 full takes of the song.

Assume editing/mixing will be 3-5 hours per song, assuming the band has a sound in mind that they can effectively relay to me, or they just like what I do with it in the first place: 5 hours = 300 minutes. 300 min/song x 4 songs = 1200 minutes.

Add 30 minutes for DVD/CD burns and other incidental aspects of the process at the end of the session.

120 + 360 + 1200 + 30 = 1710 minutes.
$20/hour relates to $0.33 each minute

1710 min * $0.33/min = $564.30 for a "worst case" scenario with me. That does not include Mastering because I typically don't do Mastering (nor do I think it's always strictly necessary).

This is not a huge surprise for what you're talking about. Keep in mind that $564.30 will get you just barely enough to record 4 songs at high-profile studios. If you can find an engineer you like who has good knowledge and a comfortable degree of proficiency who is willing to record a 4-song EP of an amateur band start to finish through tracking/editing/mixing phases for less than $500, then you're going to want to give him a $100 bonus just to make sure you keep his favor.

Thanks,

I live in the UK so it's basically halfing the dollars and calling em pounds.

This band live near me wwww.myspace.com/vitaria and my aim would be production equal to theirs (although my band aren't as heavy as they are).

And $564 (i.e around £270) is ****in way less than I would have expected. Though it may be completely different in the UK.. lol

[Moseph]

Thanks,

I live in the UK so it's basically halfing the dollars and calling em pounds.

This band live near me wwww.myspace.com/vitaria and my aim would be production equal to theirs (although my band aren't as heavy as they are).

And $564 (i.e around £270) is ****in way less than I would have expected. Though it may be completely different in the UK.. lol

I suspect it will be. The pound might be stronger than the US dollar, but that doesn't mean people will be willing to accept proportionately smaller payments, particularly at the low end of the scale.

[Bruce E Kinesis]

I know somewhere in bristol that do good stuff for £80/100 a day (wd/we) but that's different in that you turn up when they're free (it's usually a rehearsal space) and that it's basically run by a very wealthy hobbyist who clearly needed some kind of excuse to his wife for his pro tools setup.

We managed 15 minutes of material in a day, which we were quite pleased with :) Recording live with isolated amps.

[Tripp_chaos]

£1=$1.4935 > £80=$119.476 Just to kind of put a conversion on that...

[13 Crosses]

Depends on the studio and how you do it.

If you talking demo sh!t, and you've rehursed everything and you're tight, everyone just running through the songs at the same time (with vocals separately, just to make them sound nice) then you could get it as cheep as $100.

Top-of-the-range studios can cost about $250 an hour. Most of the places that have rehursal rooms attached to the studio go for about $50 an hour.

Also, I have to point out the difference between a demo and an EP. A demo is usually a pre-production version of your music that is used as a reference when you finally record your professional version.

An EP is the professional quality recording you're talking about.

If you want a really pro recording, I highly recommend doing a lot of sh!tty pre-production recordings first (where no-one really gives a f*ck about the perfect take), to hear how the song sounds as a recording and nut out any studio tricks you want to do.

Makes a pro-recording less stressful and a hell of a lot cheaper.

And remember, a cheep studio is likely to have similar gear as a pro studio. The difference is the technician.

You can hire a 'hobbiest' for $10 an hour, and just have the tech sliding volumes up and down if you know what you're doing, mix and master the recording yourself (or get it professionally mixed) and get the same results as a top-end studio.

Off topic...

That is not what EP and Demo means...

the letters EP have nothing to do with recording quality. They are an abbreviation for the words Extended Play, which is used to indicate an additional 2-3 songs to the original single. Singles usually have 2-3 songs, EPs have 5-6, I forgot what LP means (its not Long Play, im sure) but this is usually the final product for the current project.

Demo is short for demonstrational product. It actually doesnt indicate quality at all, however, usually demos have a inferior recording quality. The word demo has no reference to the stage of production that the project is going through.

It works more like this (roughly):

Preproduction - individuals are writting songs, band is forming, auditions are being held, members begin to practice blah blah blah...

Production - a Highly developed product is captured

Post - Mixing

The purpose of a demo is to secure financing from a third party, creating a viable business. In other words, your demo better ****in kick ***.

[Seafroggys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LP_album

Long play (LP) record albums

;)

SP's were 7" records that spun at 45's (they were often called 45's as well). Usually about 4 minutes a side. These were traditionally singles, one song a side.

EP's were more rare, I have to check wiki but I believe they were either 7"-10" but spun at 33.3 RPM's. Usually about 2-3 songs per side.

LP's were the records, 12" and spun at 33.3. 22 minutes a side. These were considered the full length albums.

[13 Crosses]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LP_album



;)

SP's were 7" records that spun at 45's (they were often called 45's as well). Usually about 4 minutes a side. These were traditionally singles, one song a side.

EP's were more rare, I have to check wiki but I believe they were either 7"-10" but spun at 33.3 RPM's. Usually about 2-3 songs per side.

LP's were the records, 12" and spun at 33.3. 22 minutes a side. These were considered the full length albums.

Any clue what LP stands for? I can never remember this.

[SugarCoatedSour]

They just said

LP = Long Player

[Bruce E Kinesis]

saying "xP = # songs" is stupid though. How long's a song?

[Tripp_chaos]

If you look at the record it'll tell you...

[Seafroggys]

saying "xP = # songs" is stupid though. How long's a song?

Well show me an example where on a 45 SP, there was two songs a side.

[Bruce E Kinesis]

Well show me an example where on a 45 SP, there was two songs a side.

That's not a counterexample OR a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Riot_for_New_Zer%C3%B8_Kanada

[Seafroggys]

It further reinforces my original point, AND you didn't even answer my question properly.

My post is also based on the assumption of 3-5 minute songs, as are 95% of contemporary music out there. You're just trying to prove a counterpoint that we both know is already true, that there are songs of varying length out there. That's not what I was trying to argue.

Again, find me a 45 SP that has more than one song on a side.

[Bruce E Kinesis]

An EP usually contains 20-30 mins of music.

95% of contemporary music..? I don't know. I listed my media player by song length and 5 minutes was half way up or so. I have no doubt i listen to music that's usually pretty long.

I'm just trying to show you "number of songs" is a silly thing to use.

[Seafroggys]

A modern EP. I'm talking about an actual Extended Play record.

[13 Crosses]

It further reinforces my original point, AND you didn't even answer my question properly.

My post is also based on the assumption of 3-5 minute songs, as are 95% of contemporary music out there. You're just trying to prove a counterpoint that we both know is already true, that there are songs of varying length out there. That's not what I was trying to argue.

Again, find me a 45 SP that has more than one song on a side.

The original purpose of the SP release was so that the songs that were considered hits by the artist, producer, and label could get radio exposure before the LP release. They did this so that the record could be "hyped up," to build the fans anticipation. So the typically length of a SP record consisted of songs short enough for radio play.

The EP usually had another "Hit" on it which could be release prior to the LP release so that the same effect could be achieved, and multiplied. If the target demographic didn't react well to the single then mabey they would like the new one from the EP. Additionally, in an ideal situation, the "Hit" from the SP would actually be a hit, and the "Hit" from the EP would also be a hit and reach a broader demographic.

I don't know anything about SP 45s, but I had a Nirvana SP that had three songs on it.

[Seafroggys]

an SP "45" was the original vinyl record dubbed "Short Play" because of its 4-5 minute playback per side, and it ran at 45 revolutions per minute. The SP is rarely called as such nowadays on the CD format, pretty much exclusively called singles. Albums are no longer called LP's, wonder why EP stuck?

And also, that's a sort of incorrect history. When singles and SP's and LP's were first starting out, it was a singles market; albums were generally full of crap B-sides. The SP was the focus of the industry and the artists. It wasn't until the mid 60s when the album as an artistic format started becoming dominant, and 1968 was the first year albums outsold singles.

[Aus_rock_god]

Off topic...

That is not what EP and Demo means...

the letters EP have nothing to do with recording quality. They are an abbreviation for the words Extended Play, which is used to indicate an additional 2-3 songs to the original single. Singles usually have 2-3 songs, EPs have 5-6, I forgot what LP means (its not Long Play, im sure) but this is usually the final product for the current project.

Demo is short for demonstrational product. It actually doesnt indicate quality at all, however, usually demos have a inferior recording quality. The word demo has no reference to the stage of production that the project is going through.

It works more like this (roughly):

Preproduction - individuals are writting songs, band is forming, auditions are being held, members begin to practice blah blah blah...

Production - a Highly developed product is captured

Post - Mixing

The purpose of a demo is to secure financing from a third party, creating a viable business. In other words, your demo better ****in kick ***.

You're on track there dude, but in my defence I was saying that an "EP" is what they'd be describing, as it would most likely have 5-8 tracks and be well produced.

You're right about the recording quality of a demo, but even world-class bands still do demos before recording an album. The quality is still sh!t as hell too (run a search on Metallica's Black Album demo, it has been leaked, some of the songs, particularly 'wherever I may roam", are funny as hell).

A demo CAN (and is) used to secure a recording contract, but, keep in mind that recording companies don't accept unsolicitored demos these days, so unless they ask for a copy of your demo at a gig (which they never do nowdays) they will probably never ever hear it while you are unsigned. Venues and fans will be the only ones who will be interested in demo quality stuff until you're signed.

I wouldn't call the band forming 'pre-production' though. I'd just call that 'the band forming'. Songwriting and demoing = pre prod.

The reference to an EP (even though the 'extended play' part has no relivence these days) is used in the industry to describe a "mini album" of 5-8 tracks that runs for under 45 mins. As someone else said, generally they are released by new bands either independently, or by a record company that wants to see how well "their product" will go.

An album these days is a recording that either has 9 or more tracks OR runs for 45+ minutes.

A single is a track off an album OR EP, accompanied by 2-3 "B-sides (filler tracks)" or *shudders* re-mixes. This is used to promote the album or EP, and has little other purpose these days (although people still seem to think the ways of the 1950s still apply today).

An LP only applys to vinyl and is short for "Long Play" as someone else stated.


That said, I wouldn't stick a mic in the middle of the room, record 12 songs and then call it an "album", and I wouldn't spend $4000 recording 6 tracks and only call it a "demo".

[Motleyguy]

... in short, the term "demo" can, and will, mean something completely different, depending on the context in which it is used...