Recording and Rehearsing with Musicians at Your Home Studio

I would and currently do some combination between A & B, my "A" being a lot smaller than described. That is to say, I actually have an extensive background in audio recording and engineering (assisted at a recording studio in my younger days) and at home I've built a little recording space which is sufficient for recording myself as well as soloist friends depending on the instrument (I've recorded vocals, guitars, and smaller individual strings). I also frequently do small overdubs like percussion etc. Over the years I've collected a decent collection of nice mics and outboard gear (though nothing quite like Neumann U47s or anything). In my case, however, my space is small, but it's been acoustically treated to hell and back, so it's quite dry and most forgiving for vocals, smaller instruments, and overdubs, where I can capture things very dry and process them as needed with convolution reverbs to place them in a larger space, if that's what I'm going for. In a mix it's actually pretty believable, sounding like I record in a much nicer and larger space than I actually do. Of course that comes with both experience and lots of post processing.

It all depends on many variables but in all my experience, the larger and/or louder the instrument, the less forgiving this becomes. Recording drums, brass, or a string ensemble in a home studio like mine honestly isn't worth the trouble of how much I'd have to do in post to make it sound good. Instruments like those really do benefit from being recorded in a proper studio space – especially true with ensembles. So for me, that's where "B" comes in – if I have the budget I'd rather just rent a really nice studio with an engineer for the day. Granted, I say this because it's not something I personally need to do that often.

So I guess what I'm saying is, if you can afford the time, money, and energy to invest in your own space, go for it! But just know a proper recording space is a lot from both a financial and technical standpoint. That's why for me a combination of A & B makes sense - have a manageable and decent home studio for your daily needs, and then go into a high-end studio when the project calls for it. Good luck!

wing said:

I would and currently do some combination between A & B, my "A" being a lot smaller than described. That is to say, I actually have an extensive background in audio recording and engineering (assisted at a recording studio in my younger days) and at home I've built a little recording space which is sufficient for recording myself as well as soloist friends depending on the instrument (I've recorded vocals, guitars, and smaller individual strings). I also frequently do small overdubs like percussion etc. Over the years I've collected a decent collection of nice mics and outboard gear (though nothing quite like Neumann U47s or anything). In my case, however, my space is small, but it's been acoustically treated to hell and back, so it's quite dry and most forgiving for vocals, smaller instruments, and overdubs, where I can capture things very dry and process them as needed with convolution reverbs to place them in a larger space, if that's what I'm going for. In a mix it's actually pretty believable, sounding like I record in a much nicer and larger space than I actually do. Of course that comes with both experience and lots of post processing.

It all depends on many variables but in all my experience, the larger and/or louder the instrument, the less forgiving this becomes. Recording drums, brass, or a string ensemble in a home studio like mine honestly isn't worth the trouble of how much I'd have to do in post to make it sound good. Instruments like those really do benefit from being recorded in a proper studio space – especially true with ensembles. So for me, that's where "B" comes in – if I have the budget I'd rather just rent a really nice studio with an engineer for the day. Granted, I say this because it's not something I personally need to do that often.

So I guess what I'm saying is, if you can afford the time, money, and energy to invest in your own space, go for it! But just know a proper recording space is a lot from both a financial and technical standpoint. That's why for me a combination of A & B makes sense - have a manageable and decent home studio for your daily needs, and then go into a high-end studio when the project calls for it. Good luck!

Click to expand...

Hi Wing, I see you're a cellist also, but with a heavier engineering background than me. Thanks so much for lending your experience and advice. I think you described the problem very well with recording larger/bass and loud instruments. I've beat my head up against this problem for a while. As you know it's the modal resonances and comb filtering off the walls at the root of the problem in small rooms. Bass trapping and broad band absorption help immensely for mixing, recording acoustic guitars, hand percussion, sometimes drums (depends), even pizz upright bass (close mic'd). But this is not the natural environment for bowed strings, and it's not inspiring to play in. I think most bowed string players would agree, and you can tell by which rooms they pick in their homes to practice in. If they have the choice and space it's always the typical living room with a vaulted ceiling for example. However, as engineers we know how terrible these rooms can sound in recordings. So the solution to the true root cause of the problem, is much larger spaces with high ceilings+selective treatment+isolated construction+acoustically isolated, quiet HVAC=expensive.

I'm thinking my next step is do some field testing to see if all of this isn't just ill-conceived. So, basically work up a short list of pro studio live rooms from 600-1000 sq feet, and give them a visit, cello in tow. Workout some kind of semi-consistent method for comparison (signal chain, etc.). The cello I believe is the most difficult in the bowed string family to record (because of the low-end sustained energy, and wide range), so should test the limits. Plus I know what it supposed to sound like. After this, if the cello still doesn't feel right playing in the room and sound right on tape, then it's definitely, option B (renting a hall or small church and hiring an engineer for the juicer stuff)-the more conventional option and mucho cheaper.

danstein said:

@Louie - rereading your OP I see you gave more specific options than I had remembered.

I think you will find that building an addition or freestanding structure specifically for music is going to be prohibitively expensive. I mentioned material costs for a 600 sq ft space above ($40-50k) and that was inside an existing basement with thick stone walls. Depends where you are located, but I have to guess that for a freestanding structure with adequate sound isolation (prob a minimum of 60dBNR or more given that you are near an airport) you are probably going in for $150k at a bare minimum. Could easily be twice that if you run into issues along the way (digging a foundation? drainage? permits?). And that just gets you a bare building and maybe some acoustical treatment. Then you need the recording gear (which I also mentioned above) and stuff like cabling and oh yeah since you're all in you should prob rig it up for cameras because Youtube and Insta and down the hole you go...

I'd agree with weeeve - rig up your existing space the best you can. You can DIY quite a lot, or pay someone like GIK or Real Traps to make nice-looking things for you. Get the most you can out of your existing space, and rent a better studio or recording space when you really need it.

Click to expand...

Yes @danstein, I believe you're right in the ballpark from what I've researched so far--very expensive. I have GIK and Real Traps in my home studio. They work really really well for mixing, recording acoustic guitar, vocals, pizz upright bass, hand percussion, etc. All softer instruments with less sustain (and less modal excitation). Bowed string instruments, particularly the cello (my own instrument) are just uninspiring to play small treated rooms (they just don't sing), and sound like poop in the same spaces untreated. That's the rub.

Was wondering, what happened with your Brooklyn studio? Sounded like a really nice legit setup.

Thanks very much for taking the time.

I'm a fan of the "treated living room area" for recording or rehearsing. I'm close to Frankfurt Airport and when recording a single classical acoustic guitar I can hear sometimes a little "fffffffff" in the recording but never heard anything in a final mix. But I like the relaxed athmosphere when recording at home. I'd rather cut out a few bars from an alternate take without that noise than booking a pro studio.

Investing a big amount of $$$ into an own professional recording studio sounds great but also comes along with a lot of pressure to produce full time to justify the expence. How many string quartet projects are you going to make? I know a bunch of people who lost fun over the years trying to fill their studio time with amateur bands on low budget and never ending projects while spending most of their time cutting out mistakes and doing timing correction or cleaning the rooms.

Louie said:

Bowed string instruments, particularly the cello (my own instrument) are just uninspiring to play small treated rooms (they just don't sing), and sound like poop in the same spaces untreated

Click to expand...

Wondering how you feel about wearing headphones while recording... a little reverb added to the monitor mix can bring a tremendous amount of life to your sound as you record in an acoustically damped space.

HCMarkus said:

Wondering how you feel about wearing headphones while recording... a little reverb added to the monitor mix can bring a tremendous amount of life to your sound as you record in an acoustically damped space.

Click to expand...

Thanks much @HCMarkus for your comment. Of course, wearing headphones with reverb, when recording is necessary especially when utilizing a click or just trying to blend dynamically with other tracks. Typically string players put on one ear in and keep one out, for the same reasons mentioned, also for tuning.

Remember also, this space would be for rehearsing and practicing, and wearing headphones would defeat the purpose of that.

Saxer said:

I'm a fan of the "treated living room area" for recording or rehearsing. I'm close to Frankfurt Airport and when recording a single classical acoustic guitar I can hear sometimes a little "fffffffff" in the recording but never heard anything in a final mix. But I like the relaxed athmosphere when recording at home. I'd rather cut out a few bars from an alternate take without that noise than booking a pro studio.

Investing a big amount of $$$ into an own professional recording studio sounds great but also comes along with a lot of pressure to produce full time to justify the expence. How many string quartet projects are you going to make? I know a bunch of people who lost fun over the years trying to fill their studio time with amateur bands on low budget and never ending projects while spending most of their time cutting out mistakes and doing timing correction or cleaning the rooms.

Click to expand...

Thanks @Saxer. You and @danstein made the comment on this aspect and it is absolutely a concern. My objective is not to become a full time engineer. Not that there is anything wrong with that! But that is an opportunity cost, so less time for writing, arranging, and playing music. It's convenient, necessary, and mostly fun for me to do my own engineering, but this is recording one person at a time (usually me), and mixing. You are right, not very often would I be recording a string quartet, because I would have to be writing an awful lot of that music, and how the heck would it be possible to write enough to justify the space? I see the point purely from a business perspective but remember this is a private studio.

This large space would be for personal practicing, rehearsing, and recording combined. So this space would absolutely get used, and enjoyed--daily, by me, and weekly by the rehearsal groups.

Recording-wise: I would be using it almost daily to record the cello, you are correct, probably honestly only a few times a year for recording ensembles.

But would this plan really work for recording string ensembles--that is the real question. I'm going to post a video of chamber music group do demonstrate what I mean.

This is a rehearsal of the Portland Cello Project. Really creative, inspiring, and interesting string group. They play their own original compositions, but also excellent arrangements of pop music (Radiohead), and classical pieces. Some of the members are both writers and players and they bring their music to the group to share.

If you look at the space it's likely about the kind of square footage that I'm talking about (600-1000), Personally, I love this arrangement and the playing, don't care for the recording--sounds like a living room.

So this is exactly what I'm trying to do, except with better recording quality. Likely, it would be much dryer, and with a tinge of convolution reverb.

Comments are welcome!

It all comes down to money, time and inspiration, doesn't it?

Renting a wonderful acoustic space as needed (studio or rehearsal) is inconvenient when compared to walking out to your studio on a whim, but saves money in the short to medium, maybe even long, term and will get you the inspiring sound you crave. A local Junior College auditorium might even be free to use.

Building your home space so it is acoustically excellent for rehearsing and practicing and recording is gonna' cost you a lot up front, and it won't be ready to use for quite awhile, likely well over a year. The space has got to be big enough to support the low end of your cello.

In a smaller, dryer room, you could don headphones with reverb, or pump some reverb into the space via several speakers for practicing, even rehearsing. But it would never be as inspiring as a larger, fine sounding acoustic space.

It will a lot easier to simply stroll out to that at-home studio than driving to another location. But building that space will be a substantial, costly and time-consuming undertaking. Do you want to make music now, or build a studio first?

Only you can decide how to weigh the factors in play.

I wanted to touch on something that might reframe the discussion a bit. Think of this as adding a large living room, with high ceilings to an existing home (or as a separate accessary dwelling). This living room would be isolated, treated, and climate controlled for sound. Yes, this would be expensive, but it would not be a commercial studio. Right now, I simply don't have the high ceilings or the space for bowed string instruments. It is very similar to someone who owns a grand piano. The instrument(s) needs space to breathe.

HCMarkus said:

It all comes down to money, time and inspiration, doesn't it?

Renting a wonderful acoustic space as needed (studio or rehearsal) is inconvenient when compared to walking out to your studio on a whim, but saves money in the short to medium, maybe even long, term and will get you the inspiring sound you crave. A local Junior College auditorium might even be free to use.

Building your home space so it is acoustically excellent for rehearsing and practicing and recording is gonna' cost you a lot up front, and it won't be ready to use for quite awhile, likely well over a year. The space has got to be big enough to support the low end of your cello.

In a smaller, dryer room, you could don headphones with reverb, or pump some reverb into the space via several speakers for practicing, even rehearsing. But it would never be as inspiring as a larger, fine sounding acoustic space.

It will a lot easier to simply stroll out to that at-home studio than driving to another location. But building that space will be a substantial, costly and time-consuming undertaking. Do you want to make music now, or build a studio first?

Only you can decide how to weigh the factors in play.

Click to expand...

Edit: Some how my reply got mixed with your quote.

Absolutely, HCMarkus, Of course, only I can decide. And the comments on this thread and various perspectives have been super helpful in weighing the obvious variables (cost and time), and some hidden ones as well. A few, I was aware of that the comments helped confirm. Appreciate this post, you have made some good points.

This is very very good and informative as well. I'm not sure where the session was done, probably somewhere in Nashville. But the sound of the strings is excellent. Dry, but no weird honks or resonances, and no noticeable comb filtering. It's probably impossible to know about any post processing. The players look comfortable.

Not an enormous space, but not at all small either. If you forward to 0:21 there is a camera angle showing what looks like a nice high ceiling.

Wonder if anyone knows where this was recorded? A commercial studio? J.King's home living room?

HCMarkus said:

It all comes down to money, time and inspiration, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

For anyone also considering doing this or even thinking about it, read this one sentence from @HCMarkus.

And weigh those 3 factors: Cost, time, and the end result (quality, inspiration, enjoyment, convenience, fun factor, etc.)

Louie said:

This is a rehearsal of the Portland Cello Project. Really creative, inspiring, and interesting string group. They play their own original compositions, but also excellent arrangements of pop music (Radiohead), and classical pieces. Some of the members are both writers and players and they bring their music to the group to share.

If you look at the space it's likely about the kind of square footage that I'm talking about (600-1000), Personally, I love this arrangement and the playing, don't care for the recording--sounds like a living room.

So this is exactly what I'm trying to do, except with better recording quality. Likely, it would be much dryer, and with a tinge of convolution reverb.

Comments are welcome!

Click to expand...

Wonderful group, great arrangement. A nice recording, other than, as you said, Louie, it sounds like a living room. Given the room size and low ceiling, I think the best approach is to concede that the room is too small to provide a pleasant ambience. Therefore, deaden the room as needed to remove that living room/bedroom sound. I would do full corner bass traps, and bass traps covering most of the ceiling. That way you don't lose much floor space while still getting a good amount of wide spectrum dampening. Deadening the ceiling will give the allusion of a much higher ceiling, and the hardwood floor will still allow for a modestly lively sound for the players. Then use effects to add the desired ambience.

Maybe this idea is a bit far fetched and the feasability will depend on your location, but there are certain organisations who rent out real estate to individuals as an anti-squatting measure.

I was able to rent an empty theater for €275/month including gas and electrical for 2 years, with which I could do what I wanted as long as you abide to the rules of the lending agreement.




The pros of this particular space was that it was without neighbours, the ceilings were high and had dampening material in them, so when closing the curtains and adding some basstraps, it sounded great. The main floor was around 20 x 10 meters.

weeeeve said:

Wonderful group, great arrangement. A nice recording, other than, as you said, Louie, it sounds like a living room. Given the room size and low ceiling, I think the best approach is to concede that the room is too small to provide a pleasant ambience. Therefore, deaden the room as needed to remove that living room/bedroom sound. I would do full corner bass traps, and bass traps covering most of the ceiling. That way you don't lose much floor space while still getting a good amount of wide spectrum dampening. Deadening the ceiling will give the allusion of a much higher ceiling, and the hardwood floor will still allow for a modestly lively sound for the players. Then use effects to add the desired ambience.

Click to expand...

Thanks much @weeeeve. Yes, I can't see anyway around it, especially since that is a flat ceiling. Maybe adding thin wood slats spaced out over the corner traps as well to get a touch more life.

Marcus Millfield said:

Maybe this idea is a bit far fetched and the feasability will depend on your location, but there are certain organisations who rent out real estate to individuals as an anti-squatting measure.

I was able to rent an empty theater for €275/month including gas and electrical for 2 years, with which I could do what I wanted as long as you abide to the rules of the lending agreement.




The pros of this particular space was that it was without neighbours, the ceilings were high and had dampening material in them, so when closing the curtains and adding some basstraps, it sounded great. The main floor was around 20 x 10 meters.

Click to expand...

Wow @Marcus Millfield, including utilities....that just looks too good to be true. If I could find something similar here, including utilities, I would go for it.

Is this in a rural area?

Louie said:

Wow @Marcus Millfield, including utilities....that just looks too good to be true. If I could find something similar here, including utilities, I would go for it.

Is this in a rural area?

Click to expand...

This was at the edge of a small town in the middle of a rural area. It was part of a larger facility that was decommissioned as a juvenile rehabilitation center by the state many years ago. As they didn't have any use for it after they abandoned it, a few buildings were rented out. Among the theater were an automobile workshop, bakery and gym. My wife and I were lucky to get the theater.

I had to get the whole building cleaned when we just got it. That's a lot of work for such a large building, as it was empty for quite a while. You only see the main floor in the photo, but it also had a kitchen, several offices, storage rooms, a stage and backstage with facilities (toilets, showers, dressing room, etc.) and a basement. I also had to take care of any issues that arose. The first big downpour showed that most windows were leaking. First winter showed the heating was acting up. That kind of thing. And there are regular checks by the owner.

Louie said:

Maybe adding thin wood slats spaced out over the corner traps as well to get a touch more life.

Click to expand...

You can absorb a small room without deadening it, and make it sound surprisingly great. There are tons of hybrid absorber-diffuser products that do an excellent job. (Also known as Binary Amplitude Diffusers, which are now widely available. You'll also find them in tons of commercial spaces because they really do a surprisingly good job). You can also buy or make bass traps that have a membrane or material on the face, (hardboard for example). The membrane extends the bass absorption a bit, at the same time, it reflects midrange back into the room...

The great thing about panels like this is that they're ideal for smaller spaces, whereas the larger, more traditional types of diffusors aren't considered the best choice for smaller rooms...

I have a both types (B.A.D. and large traps with a hardboard face) in my studio. I replaced a bunch of absorption-only panels and they really did make a world of difference. The membrane panels sit near my speakers, (absorbing some speaker boundary reflection), and run along the rear of my space. The binary amplitude panels are scattered throughout my ceiling and sidewalls.

Additionally you can buy (or make) absorbers with a slatted surface (as you mentioned above)... Not to mention that there are heavier wooden acoustic surfaces/plates you can buy that offer any of the options above that you could mount as a face in front of standard absorbers...

RPG has some some great information on their site... GIK also has some useful information (as well as some great panels, I have their Alpha 2D's & their 'FlexRange' traps [5" & 7" deep])... If you do some digging there's plenty of research and math that supports the information you'll find at both of the links below...

Personally speaking, if I were in your situation the 1st place I'd start with is acoustics... It may cost you a few grand, but you'll at least know right away what to expect in terms of recording quality... You'd get an idea of how some these types of acoustic treatments would affect a custom space, and could even move any panels you bought in to one.. At the same time you might just be pleasantly surprised, and decide it's worth looking into some realistic compromises. (Which again, might have much more pleasant results than expected, without bankrupting yourself).

Louie said:

Hi Wing, I see you're a cellist also, but with a heavier engineering background than me. Thanks so much for lending your experience and advice. I think you described the problem very well with recording larger/bass and loud instruments. I've beat my head up against this problem for a while. As you know it's the modal resonances and comb filtering off the walls at the root of the problem in small rooms. Bass trapping and broad band absorption help immensely for mixing, recording acoustic guitars, hand percussion, sometimes drums (depends), even pizz upright bass (close mic'd). But this is not the natural environment for bowed strings, and it's not inspiring to play in. I think most bowed string players would agree, and you can tell by which rooms they pick in their homes to practice in. If they have the choice and space it's always the typical living room with a vaulted ceiling for example. However, as engineers we know how terrible these rooms can sound in recordings. So the solution to the true root cause of the problem, is much larger spaces with high ceilings+selective treatment+isolated construction+acoustically isolated, quiet HVAC=expensive.

I'm thinking my next step is do some field testing to see if all of this isn't just ill-conceived. So, basically work up a short list of pro studio live rooms from 600-1000 sq feet, and give them a visit, cello in tow. Workout some kind of semi-consistent method for comparison (signal chain, etc.). The cello I believe is the most difficult in the bowed string family to record (because of the low-end sustained energy, and wide range), so should test the limits. Plus I know what it supposed to sound like. After this, if the cello still doesn't feel right playing in the room and sound right on tape, then it's definitely, option B (renting a hall or small church and hiring an engineer for the juicer stuff)-the more conventional option and mucho cheaper.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. My room has a lot of bass trapping and sounds great for mixing and overdubs as I said, but honestly pretty awful for cello. The room kind of sucks out a lot of the warmth and low-end of my instrument, and times I've tried recording it, it sounds a bit shrill, thin, and brittle. I know it's the room and not my cello or strings because when I play anywhere else, a nice room especially, the instrument really sings and breathes with depth and beauty! I should say I'm more of an amateur cellist so I don't get out to record it that much, but something I hope to do more in the future, because it really doesn't sound great in my treated room – as has been my experience with other large and lyrical instruments which require a nice acoustic space to "breathe" and come to life. I've always been pretty fascinated how acoustic instruments interact with acoustic spaces in a symbiotic way, like living things.

Good luck on your journey and feel free to update in the future how things go!