Methodology
There is a method to the madness...
Table of Content
2.1 Summary
2.2 Ethnographic
2.3 Interviews
2.4 Acoustics
2.5 Acoustic absorption and material acoustic guide
2.6 Studio Sessions
2.7 Survey: Commercial Vs. Home Studios
2.8 Studio Design
2.1 Summary
This report seeks to discover what are the advantages and disadvantages to Commercial and Home Studios, while using the research to conclude what the future for each studio is going to be and to see which studio is currently better overall.
2.2 Ethnographic
An ethnographic approach was chosen for studying and collecting data on Studio recording sessions due to the delicate nature of the sessions. As studio sessions are very much isolated endeavors and are easily influenced with outside sources when it comes to its creativity; and that creativity and workflow is what is being researched for this report. (Harrison, 2014; Thompson & Lashua, 2014; Lefford & Thompson, 2018).
Harrison (2014), Thompson & Lashua (2014) and Lefford & Thompson (2018) have different approaches to gathering ethnographic data on studio sessions. Thompson & Lashua (2014) and Lefford & Thompson (2018) share a similar approach to this by video and audio recording of the sessions and reviewing the data after the fact and this is definitely a simple way to record the data needed. Harrison (2014) has a different approach, that being becoming a part of the recording session, like a Cub eating alongside their Lion parent, this helped Harrison get even better insight on how these recording sessions went down as he got greater amounts of trust, opened him to ask further questions throughout and understanding the social dynamics and he learnt the aesthetic and performative aspects of Hip hop music and the recording artists. (Harrison, 2014)
But despite Harrisons ethnographic method being very lucrative with the data he got, he did not go in this report with that in mind, in fact; Harrison (2014, pp.1) stated, “I would have considered myself fortunate to be permitted to “hang around” during recording sessions. Yet through Serendipitous circumstances, I became a key player in the activities surrounding the creation of several music recordings and releases.” (Harrison, 2014)
This means that he was fortunate to get his active role in the sessions and it is not something someone should expect to happen when collecting data on recording sessions, therefore for this research paper the ethnographic approach of filming and recording audio will be done for recording sessions but communication is key and a talk with the studio owner will be done first to determine the ways they may feel considerable for data collection and perhaps they will allow for the Harrison method of data collections. (Harrison, 2014)
2.3 Interviews
This report will also have interviews with industry specialties and musicians, people who have had experiences in both Home and Commercial studios and an interview with a Mastering Engineer, as Mastering is the last process of a track production process and therefore a mastering engineer may have insight on what kind of mixes they prefer from home or commercial studios and what trends they notice from each. (Pras & Guastavino, 2011; Owsinski, 2017)
For the Musicians (Appendix 5), their first two questions were about creative functionality and workflow as these go in tandem when creating music and modern equipment is very much about functionality and ease of workflow for creative freedom. (Hidalgo, 2013; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Iverson, 2017). The third and fourth questions ask the musicians if they prefer studios with a singular producer or a team of a producer and engineers and if they are intimidated by a studio with a team of engineers and a producer, as research shows that studios are collaborative spaces with many individuals adding to the musical compositions, but it also shows that studios are easily influenced and too many bodies might negatively influence the musicians. (Camilleri, 2010; Bell, 2014; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Harrison, 2014; Thompson & Lashua, 2014). The last question is designed to allow the musicians to give an answer based on something that was not targeted in the previous questions. (Pras & Guastavino, 2011)
(Appendix 6) The questions for the producers, engineers, and mastering engineer will be the same except there will be more question for the mastering engineer based around mastering. (Owsinski, 2017; Pras & Guastavino, 2011). Questions one asks about the technological and creative decisions of both studios and which is better for accessibility and workflow. (Robair, 2012; Lefford & Thompson, 2018). Question two is about about the recording environment standards mentioned in Long (2013) article and asks if in terms of those criteria mentioned in question two which studio is better for those elements. (Long, 2013) (Appendix 1).
Question three is a bit broader for the engineers and producers as there use of this equipment will not be purely creative but also corrective and will likely have more opinions so best to get a broader statement as well as a which is better. (Hidalgo, 2013; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Bell, 2014). Question four and five asks the producers, engineers and mastering engineer if working on your own in a studio is just as effective as working with a team of engineers and if digital technology has improved functionality of studios or if analogue equipment is still better, they were asked to list some pros and cons to get as broader number of answers. (Bell, 2014; Camilleri, 2010; Hidalgo, 2013; Iverson, 2017)
And the last question for the Mastering Engineer; With the acoustical issues and potentially lacking knowledge of audio quality of Home Studios, this question is asking if there is a different in corrective quality of the music. (Everest, 2014; Thomazelli & Bertoli, 2019; Yeary, 2014; Newell, 2017; Wilson, 2011)
2.4 Acoustics
When conducting the interviews with the studio producers, they will be asked if they can provide their studio dimensions as a comparison of modal issues and frequency response of the studios will be made for this report, this will be done by using Room EQ Wizard, as being able to compare real life studios and not using secondary research will provide more effective research and the producers will be asked if they know of their modal issues and how they work around these issues. (Yeary, 2014; Everest, 2014; Newell, 2017; Thomazelli & Bertoli, 2019)
The producers will also be asked what absorbers and diffusers they use for acoustical treatment within their studio, then with the information, research will be done to compare the acoustic coefficients and overall effectiveness for reducing reflections and modal issues. (Yeary, 2014; Everest, 2014; Newell, 2017; Thomazelli & Bertoli, 2019)
2.5 Acoustic absorption and material acoustic guide
Similar to Everest (2014) and Owsinski’s (2013) book and videos, a page will be added to the project that will be examining, analysing, and comparing different absorbers for small and large rooms based on product found RPGeurope’s website, one of the UK’s leading acoustic distributers and developers. (RPGeurope, 2021) and discussing what the best absorbers will be best for both types of rooms based on price, absorption coefficients and how effective it will be based on the room, for example bass traps for small rooms, diffusers for a room with a noticeable standing wave. This will be done to help the reader find the best absorbers and absorption material for their particular situation and help determine which room has it easier when it comes to what they need to properly acoustically treat it. (Everest, 2014; Owsinski, 2013; Yeary, 2014; Everest, 2014; Newell, 2017; Thomazelli & Bertoli, 2019)
2.6 Studio Sessions
Like the ethnographic section of the methodology, research can be done to gather data on the workflow of a commercial or home studio but instead of an ethnographic approach, instead a more hands-on approach can be done. (Harrison, 2014).
Like Harrison (2014), how he became a part of the creative process, a studio session can be booked at Studio 1 and another booked in one of the edit suites, which is in the same design as a home studio in terms of being mostly all software based and in smaller environments. (Everest, 2014; Yeary, 2014; Thomazelli & Bertoli, 2019; Newell, 2017; Robair, 2012; Long, 2013; Burgess, 2008; Harrison, 2014)
With these two studio sessions booked, musicians can be brought into both and then record their music utilizing the equipment within the rooms, then once the sessions are both, the musicians will be asked which they preferred and what allowed them to be more creatively expressive and what had better workflow. The commercial studio session in Studio 1 will also attempt to have a team of producer and engineers whereas the home studio session in the edit suite will be only one producer for realism. (Hidalgo, 2013; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Iverson, 2017; Harrison, 2014; Thompson & Lashua, 2014)
These sessions will also allow for a personal better understanding of which is better in terms of workflow and creative freedom also. (Everest, 2014; Yeary, 2014; Thomazelli & Bertoli, 2019; Newell, 2017; Robair, 2012; Long, 2013; Burgess, 2008; Harrison, 2014)
2.7 Survey: Commercial Vs. Home Studios
(Appendix 3) This Survey will act as further research and more insight into the questions that were asked in the Interview section but targeted at general studio experienced individuals, this will also give the research some qualitative and quantitative data on whether commercial or home studios are preferred. These people will be found on the internet, at community crafted subreddits, Facebook groups and general internet blogs and community websites. This will be done as this will offer a more general conclusion of what is believed about commercial and home studios, plus hardware and software equipment. (Brannen, 2016; Sapsford, 2006)
Some questions titles will be changed to fit a broader audience, for example the question: “In terms of creativity, which is better functionality wise: Hardware equipment or Software equipment?” and “Can you list some pros and cons to hardware and software equipment? And tell me which you think is better?” will be changed to “Creatively, which is better: Hardware or Software equipment?” and “Correctively, which is better: Hardware or Software equipment?” (Sapsford, 2006)
2.8 Studio Design
The studio design section of this work is an accumulation of all the work done for this project to design a studio that embodies all the advantages of both studio types. This will be taking all the knowledge gained and used throughout this work to reach a design conclusion.
The main areas of design that being considered are location of studio/where it is built, room dimensions, acoustic treatment, operational structure, budget, marketability, common studio requirements (Acoustical & Functional) and equipment. (Bell, 2014; Camilleri, 2010; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Thompson & Lashua, 2014; Harrison, 2014; Hidalgo, 2013; Watson, 2013; Burgess, 2008; Long, 2013; Robair, 2012; Walzer, 2016; Wilson, 2011; Herbst & Albrecht, 2018; Wilson, 2011; Everest, 2015; Newell, 2017; Sonarworks, 2019; Taylor, 2015; Order, 2016; O’Gardy, 2019; Lau, 2012; Hagan, 2016; Woszczyk & Leonard, 2012; Zoran & Paradiso, 2011; Owsinski, 2013; Section 2: Interviews; Section 3.5 Acoustic Guide; Section 4: Studio Sessions; Section 5: Survey: Studios)
As discovered throughout this work, the answer will not be black and white in terms of which studio is better so this section will be able to give more of a tangible result to the work and instead of trying to divide home and commercial studios, it will bring them together to birth a hybrid studio, encompassing the design aspects of both studios.