Page 1 of 2

STUDIO :: Monastic Chambers Studio Reviews

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:54 pm
by Al Quandt
Post experiences and Reviews here.

Please read the rules before posting

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:14 pm
by Al Quandt
I recorded with John on 2 ocassions with 2 bands.

With Severence...

We recorded the track "Falling Down" which made it to the Essentials album that year. We where in the studio for about 5 hours. Almost everything sounded great, I would have liked to go back in and spend more time mixing.

With Pleasing Melani...

We bought a 12hr session which was a very decent price for what we got accomplished. We when in telling him that we are going for quanity first. We recorded 13 full tracks and one improv track in those 12 hours. We have all 14 of the raw tracks down with in 5hrs. Part of that may have been due to me not having to redo a single drum track but all in all it was pretty fast.

He is a great guy, spends a little too much time chit chatting sometimes but it was also good to get to know him better. He is an interesting guy.

I can't say too much about the final project because we never finished and just went with what we had, because we really didnt care, we just wanted the songs recorded.

_al

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:58 am
by zenmandan
I've recorded at Jon's at least fifteen-twenty times in the last few years and have never had a negative experience. I recorded all of the percussion tracks for Duane Eby's "It's what's inside that counts..." and have also recorded with Mimi Burns and done live recordings with him. He has always been completely accomodating, no matter how many times I may want to go back and punch in or redo an entire track (often times on his dime, not the person I'm recording for).

Jon is very straight forward with you and will tell you the truth. Listen to him. He's been doing this for a long time and knows what does and doesn't work. When I'm recording I take his opinion very seriously and do all I can to implement his suggestions. I haven't been unhappy with one of them yet.

As long as your group is prepared going into the session, all should be fine. If you or one of your members is not prepared, he may be a bit short with you, but that's your own fault...not his. We've talked several times about people coming in totally unready to record, and then take their frustrations of having a bad recording out on him, as if their sh#tty playing has anything to do with his recording ability. As the saying goes..."you can't polish a turd".

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:22 pm
by bassjones
The Good: Jon knows what he's doing!
Easy as heck to work with
Everything ends up sounding great

The Bad:
The clutter makes it feel less "professional" - that could be good too I suppose
The cats - I'm allergic, so everytime I go there I end up with sneezing/wheezing fits for hours after
The personal monitoring system is not professional at all. Needs to upgrade this part of the studio badly. Some of the headphones are just plain bad. I would suggest Avioms, but that's pretty big $$$ He needs to do something about that though. We had some performance issues due to not hearing well last time.

Overall, a good place to record, but minor issues keep me from giving it an A.

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:29 pm
by Dagwood Lee
The pussies got to go.

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:51 pm
by beck
deleted.....

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:34 am
by quantum_driveshaft
I've recorded there a few times with two different groups.
I agree that Jon is a great guy.
I do have to say that I don't think is he very 'rock' minded, and when we would listen back to what we just did, we would never hear essential things like the snare drum or the guitar, and I know we could just say 'turn these things up,' but cmon. How am I supposed to know if I did a good take if I can't hear it? And another thing, when I play drums I tend to beat the hell out of them, and when I'd listen to the playback it sounded weak, so again, how can I tell if I put out the appropriate energy in the track I just did?
I think he's great, but maybe shouldn't look at pictures on the internet while he's supposed to be tweaking our mixes so we can get an idea of what we just did.

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:31 pm
by Trojan
I went in with some friends of mine who are in a band. Lets just say the whole session was a nightmare he talked all the time about how long he has been recording and how his studio is soooo connected to the music biz. After all the tracking was finished and they got the final mix it sounded really bad! He added stuff that he felt needed to be there. Bad bad bad. :(

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:33 pm
by bassjones
He's always been very attentive to us, but maybe that's just because he likes our style or something.

Basic tracks and semi-finished mix sounds really good. We'll see how the final product sounds before I give a full review...

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:31 pm
by beck
deleted....

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:48 pm
by zenmandan
beck wrote:In my opinion, If you are in his line of work, you work for the band that is in your studio. If they want the entire album unpolished and overdriven, then that is what you do.
You guys are great at what you do, and you like "your sound". To people that don't know you and your sound, however, a completely raw CD could come across as having been recorded/engineered by a dipstick behind the board. Perhaps this is what he was trying to avoid. Take a look at what Metallica did on whatever CD that was...you know the one...it was totally raw in comparison to everything else they did, and people hated it. The majority hated it because it wasn't Metallica as they knew them. The rest hated it because it sounded like shite. Again..perhaps he was trying to avoid putting his name on something that he construed would be taken as a bad recording, not as a raw unpolished sound that was done on purpose. Just trying to look at it from the other side. :wink:

I do agree that he should have tried to come as close to what you wanted as possible. Maybe if he was uncomfortable with what you wanted he shouldn't have insisted on doing the album, but instead sent you to a qualified competitor. Either way...keep up the good work! 8)

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:51 pm
by bassjones
zenmandan wrote:
beck wrote:In my opinion, If you are in his line of work, you work for the band that is in your studio. If they want the entire album unpolished and overdriven, then that is what you do.
You guys are great at what you do, and you like "your sound". To people that don't know you and your sound, however, a completely raw CD could come across as having been recorded/engineered by a dipstick behind the board. Perhaps this is what he was trying to avoid. Take a look at what Metallica did on whatever CD that was...you know the one...it was totally raw in comparison to everything else they did, and people hated it. The majority hated it because it wasn't Metallica as they knew them. The rest hated it because it sounded like shite. Again..perhaps he was trying to avoid putting his name on something that he construed would be taken as a bad recording, not as a raw unpolished sound that was done on purpose. Just trying to look at it from the other side. :wink:

I do agree that he should have tried to come as close to what you wanted as possible. Maybe if he was uncomfortable with what you wanted he shouldn't have insisted on doing the album, but instead sent you to a qualified competitor. Either way...keep up the good work! 8)
Garage Days (revisited)??? The covers album... Or maybe just every CD since And Justice For All...

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:53 pm
by zenmandan
bassjones wrote:...Or maybe just every CD since And Justice For All...
:lol: haha...nice.

Actually, I was thinking of St. Anger, but I know a lot of people that would agree with you. :wink:

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:53 pm
by AndrewTeepleBassist
I think he's talking about "St. Anger". The drums on that album sound horrible.

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:33 pm
by bassjones
is that the infamous album with the (supposedly) ProTools pieced together drum parts????