Sorry to rain on the article but there are several flaws with the question then the method used to answer the question.

Firstly, how many songs which make loads of money each year win a Grammy? Perhaps 1/100 of 1%? I doubt it is even that high.

So in my mind, the question - can a home recorded/edited/mastered song win a Grammy is almost an irrelevant question.

I'll throw a question back - when has the Grammy awards show ever been mixed and broadcast properly? It is one of the worst examples of a live show almost every single year it is broadcast. They totally butchered the Sting/Allison Krauss duet of a few years ago.

Put the folks that engineer Austin City Limits in charge, or the Ramsey Lewis Masters of Jazz show in charge of the Grammys.

Secondly, they only interview professional studio engineers. How do you think these guys will answer such a question? If they aren't biased, I don't know who is.

They would be better to interview people who make money hand over fist with home recorded music - like Sufjan Stevens, or Elliott Smith (well he's dead now), or Beck (well his home studio can be argued to be pro).

Every issue of TapeOp magazine (free subscriptions in the US) features usually at least one band/producer, etc. that is doing work out of their home, for profit.

A Grammy would look really cool on the mantle above the fireplace - but it's not even a reasonable goal for home recordists.

The fact of the matter is that scores more people have access to technology affordable for their homes to make works of art that can be shared with others.

It's just like digital photography has brought access to the fun of photography to the masses in a way that only professionals could afford in the past. My 7th grade daughter has the concept of 'bracketing' and taking multiple shots of a subject, only to save and preserve the best, down in a self-taught way, through experimentation, with her little $100 panasonic camera I bought for her for Christmas a couple years ago.

The article's points on input, monitoring and acoustics are right on. If you study and understand these concepts, you can overcome much of the limitations of the differences between the home studio and pro studio for very little money if any.

Example: Mix quietly, audition loudly elsewhere in other rooms. This helps your nearfield monitors to behave in the near field. Take note of peaks and valleys in the spectrum (usually below 1000Hz) in the places where you audition. Teach yourself the concept of memorizing what these holes and peaks sound like by using a 31 band EQ on the output buss while listening to music you know forward and backward. Start with the vocal formant dominant frequencies of 250/500 Hz 'oooooo', 1000 Hz 'aaaaaaah' 2000 Hz 'eh', 4000 Hz 'eeeee'.

Don't have a 31 band EQ in hardware, no excuse - get a VST plugin for free to do this.

Monitoring quietly also saves the hearing system and allows for longer sessions, and preserves relationships with close-by neighbors.

Example: Properly micing guitar cabinets vs. using a good amplifier simulator.

I'll take choice 2 every time, because I know I would spend far too much time treating my recording/mixing/editing room acoustically and that I don't have a stack of Fender and Marshall and Vox amps sitting in that room like what sits in the simulator taking up only hard drive space!

My Songs, photos, writing,etc.
My Sound Cloud