I think this is another 'given'...
It's easy to spend 5 grand in a big fancy recording studio on just recording a few songs.
For the 'little guy' it just makes more sense to
"buy-in' to the digital recording revolution with that 5 grand. You can then record 'til your heart's content, with no pressure, and nobody
else's head in your mix.
As far as the 'big boys', why would they possibly want to be invloved in this? Over the
past few years, this has done nothing but keep money from going into their pockets.
Why would they want to give away their tricks
of the trade to 'the little guys' who are contributing to their possible downfall?
However, this is not so much a revolution as
an evolution. The technology is only going to keep getting better and more accessible, as
is the information. So, as for the future, it is
inevitable and unstoppable. And, not only aren't us 'little guys' using the big studios after we get our gear. As we get better at using our new technology, other 'little guys' who don't yet have the cash to 'buy-in' are going to guys like us to record their demos and such at a much cheaper rate.
The one area where the big studios will be able to absorb some of this loss is in mastering. With all this recording going on,
lots of guys are going to want their tracks mastered by a pro. So it only makes sense
that mastering is going to become a much
larger part of their business in the future.
ARE WE A THREAT? %$ YES !!!

While the old-school engineers are whinning about how protools lacks warmth, I'm mixing hit records. I love tracking in protools, mixing at home, and then booking a major studio & tweeking my mixes. I print about 4 mixes a day at the majors. This allows me to charge more, and still save my clients money.

I belive there will be a "balance" at some point reached. in all do respect, the big studio's are not going to go away in the since that they will become extinct.
After all what they are selling is, the "environment", an acoustically colored room in various deferent flavors. I feel that the DAW has and will continue to allow the separation between the multi-million dollar facilities and the home musician to narrow down. As far as the SSL's and Neve's of the world they will continue to evolve around the market, if you look closely you can see that is what they have been doing.
We all agree on, no matter what you use to record it, it must first start at the source. So what you might see in the future is " Acoustic Rooms for rent" to track those drums, And that room may be equipt with a DAW so you just take your session home with you to add the other various instruments to it, then you may mix it at a "Mixing room"
You see where I am going here?
The Current studio's would just change how they offer the facility to the public.
But the multi-Million dollar toy's will always be there, simply because of the need to say you have the "very best that man can offer in the field"
:P

------------------
Joel Gette
Soundscape Digital

Originally posted by e-cue:
While the old-school engineers are whinning about how protools lacks warmth, I'm mixing hit records.

Anything that I can listen to or might have heard?

Mark Plancke

Originally posted by SonOfSmawg:

For the 'little guy' it just makes more sense to "buy-in' to the digital recording revolution with that 5 grand. You can then record 'til your heart's content, with no pressure, and nobody else's head in your mix.

Maybe what that 5 grand is paying for is acoustically sound environments and experience. Many inexperienced people think that buying gear with tons of time on your hands equals a good product, that's just not true. You have to have the "ear experience" to be able to produce excellent results and that's something that money can't buy.

Why would they want to give away their tricks
of the trade to 'the little guys' who are contributing to their possible downfall?

There are no "tricks" or short cuts involved in quality audio production, another commonly held myth.

However, this is not so much a revolution as
an evolution. The technology is only going to keep getting better and more accessible, as
is the information. So, as for the future, it is inevitable and unstoppable.

Again, it's not the gear it's the ears (experience). Someone lacking experience could go into the best studio in the world and still produce a turd.

going to guys like us to record their demos and such at a much cheaper rate.

Not many people go into big studios to cut demos and that is the one thing that personal recording setups and basement studios excell at.

ARE WE A THREAT? %$? YES !!!

If you have the experience to create a stellar product in your environment then I would agree, otherwise all the cheap technology in the world ain't gonna get you there.

Mark Plancke

Mark,
Sounds like you missed the whole point.
If a guy buys into digital recording for $5000, he is much better off than if he blows that hard-earned cash on a one time, one or two song trip to big-wig recording heaven. You can feed a man once, or you can teach him to fish...applies perfectly here.
The experience and education that a musician gains with a DAW is far more valuable than a
trip to Mr. Bigwig's. That $5000 trip isn't going to make anyone a star, as we're all aware that it takes more than that to produce a song in a major recording studio,
but a $5000 DAW just might allow that musician to GROW into a star. He may even end up producing his own hit eventually.
You took a common phrase, 'tricks of the trade', at face value. I don't think there's anyone here who thinks big shot producers say
incantations over their recording media to
achieve their results...hehehe. My original point, I believe, was very clear. As in any trade or business, if a person is successful,
and making the lion's share of the money, why
in the world would he give his knowledge away
to lots of people who would turn around and use that very knowledge to keep him from making as much money? It's a very valid, logical point. And apparently, it's correct,
as I don't see big-time producers beating down the doors of the DAW sites to give away
the fruits of their experience. In fact, the only exception that I've seen to that is Stephen Paul, and we are truly blessed to have him here.
Whether Mr. Bigwig, or even Mr. Mediumwig
likes it, DAWs are going to hurt their business, big time. Fact of life.
BTW, I've heard plenty of turds come out of mega-studios and get airplay, and I've
heard plenty of bands and musicians who couldn't sound like a turd even on a $29
cassette deck from Kmart. The Beatles still
sound great on their 4 track recordings.

Originally posted by SonOfSmawg:
Mark,
Sounds like you missed the whole point.

My point is it's the guy behind the board not the gear. If you're talented you could make a record on $5000 worth of gear, if you're not talented you could make a turd on $5M worth of gear.

Repeat after me...
"It's the ears not the gear."

If a guy buys into digital recording for $5000, he is much better off than if he blows that hard-earned cash on a one time, one or two song trip to big-wig recording heaven. You can feed a man once, or you can teach him to fish...applies perfectly here.

No it really doesn't. My point is that you can learn more from someone with the talent and experience in one session than you could sitting in your basement for 5 years trying to make a hit record. Unless you've been exposed to that situation you would never know. Repeat after me....

"Owning a 747 doesn't make you a pilot".

The experience and education that a musician gains with a DAW is far more valuable than a
trip to Mr. Bigwig's.

Wrong, see above.

That $5000 trip isn't going to make anyone a star, as we're all aware that it takes more than that to produce a song in a major recording studio,

No amount of money spent in a recording studio will make someone a star. Repeat after me....

"In most cases it's the song, not the person singing it".

but a $5000 DAW just might allow that musician to GROW into a star. He may even end up producing his own hit eventually.

Repeat after me....

"It's the song".

My original point, I believe, was very clear. As in any trade or business, if a person is successful,and making the lion's share of the money, why in the world would he give his knowledge away to lots of people who would turn around and use that very knowledge to keep him from making as much money? It's a very valid, logical point. And apparently, it's correct,

Stephen Paul is one person who is more than willing to discuss his techniques, in ensence he is giving away his knowledge. You'd be surprised at how many successful people are willing to pass on their knowledge to someone who takes a genuine interest.

Whether Mr. Bigwig, or even Mr. Mediumwig
likes it, DAWs are going to hurt their business, big time. Fact of life.

Not really, the basement DAW operators will allow people with a limited budget to produce a recording to sell to his friends. How many projects have you worked on that pressed more than 1000 CD's? How many projects that you have worked on still have 500 CD's sitting in the closet?

BTW, I've heard plenty of turds come out of mega-studios and get airplay, and I've
heard plenty of bands and musicians who couldn't sound like a turd even on a $29
cassette deck from Kmart. The Beatles still
sound great on their 4 track recordings.

Thank you,Repeat after me....

"It's not the gear it's the ears."
"It's the song, not the singer."
"Owning a 747 doesn't make you a pilot."

Mark Plancke

Originally posted by SonOfSmawg:
You can feed a man once, or you can teach him to fish...applies perfectly here.

Not exactly. You can't teach a man to fish by giving him a string and a hook, then making him walk out onto a frozen lake. He might get lucky and get it right, but there's no guarantee he'll make it. Doesn't seem to be the most intelligent thing to do when there are eons of accumulated knowledge and techniques available to accomplish the task quicker, more efficiently, and without hurting onesself.

...a $5000 DAW just might allow that musician to GROW into a star. He may even end up producing his own hit eventually.

As long as there is talent present. And the DAW might either make you think there is none when there really is, or decieve you into thinking there is some for many years. Neither here nor there. An experienced ear can sort that out real quick.
Even if there is talent, there is the risk of getting caught "in a bubble" of your own "creativity", where you can't sort out the wheat from the chaffe. Again, exposure to experienced ears who can quickly tell you what you might be doing wrong - when you don't even realize you were doing it - can be a good thing.
Whichever way you decide to go, don't forsake the advantages of other routes.

why in the world would he give his knowledge away to lots of people who would turn around and use that very knowledge to keep him from making as much money?

Taking such a combative view doesn't get anywhere. Who do we have to look to for help, if not each other? And who wants to associate with a knowledge scrooge, let alone hire one?
We get gigs because of our "vibe", not because we know some trick that somebody else will eventually figure out - whether we teach them or not. And no one can take "vibe" away from you. Not to mention that there is an endless stream of "tricks", and no matter how many you give away you can always make more.

It's a very valid, logical point. And apparently, it's correct,

Umm... ok, that's just arrogant. Hehe.

I don't see big-time producers beating down the doors of the DAW sites to give away the fruits of their experience.

They're too busy working in studios and giving away their experience to the assistants and interns who work there. There are the few "new hot tricks" that happen, which are like trademarks that some producers are not as free to part with. But there are plenty of freebies to pick up.

BTW, I've heard plenty of turds come out of mega-studios and get airplay, and I've heard plenty of bands and musicians who couldn't sound like a turd even on a $29 cassette deck from Kmart. The Beatles still sound great on their 4 track recordings.

Can't argue with that one. Tho for their day, the Beatles were recording on state-of-the-art gear. And Sir Martin weren't no slouch neither.

Originally posted by mp@soundtechrecording.com:
"It's not the gear it's the ears."

Can't argue with that one. I might add "It's the song and the ear, not the gear."

"It's the song, not the singer."

Usually, yes. But there are a lot of great songs that never see the light of day due to s****y performances. And likewise, a lot of great performers who can turn scrawled gibberish into a work of art.

"Owning a 747 doesn't make you a pilot."

And neither does watching over your pilot's shoulder for a couple short flights.

I think we all need to pause and try to see everyone's point of view from their perspective. All these points don't neccesarily contradict each other. They're almost saying the same thing at times, but using different words.

"Can't we all just get along?"

HEHEHE...You know, I'm lovin this, guys.

We have all just unknowingly demonstrated the
core idea of the DAW evolution/revolution.

Let one guy dare say "screw those high-priced studios, I'm getting me a DAW",
and the studio owners get their panties in a wad, and start trying to pick you apart.
Thanx for helping me make my point!

SonOfSmawg - "It's the ears not the gear"
...yup, and I was also born with two, just like you! But, I'm sure you have better speakers to treat yours to, as well as a
hell of a lot more professional recording experience and education. However, since I
bought my 001 last February, I've taken a great liking to recording, much more than I did with analog recording, and I now plan to go to school. In my case, I've recorded in some nice studios, but they've never had such an impact on me that I wanted to pursue
recording like I do now. Do you see my point?

SonOfSmawg - "Owning a 747 doesn't make you a pilot" ... That's for sure! But flying around in a little ultralight has peaked my interest enough to make me want to pursue
earning my wings.

SonOfSmawg - "It's the song" ... Yup. And if I can record the song at a level of quality
that is acceptable to me, and I'm happy with
it, then that's cool. I've yet to make a recording that led me to believe that I'd better pack it up and leave the recording to
Mr. Bigwig. In fact, I've generally been more happy with my own recordings than ones
I've done in bigger studios, because I'm more at-ease in my performance, and I can take my time. I can also go back and change things at a later date as ideas and inspiration dictate. Sure, the "sound" isn't
quite as good, but the "song' is better.

So, Ang was right, we are basically saying the same things, but from a different perspective. However, Ang, I wouldn't call recording on 001 "walking out on a frozen lake with a hook and a line". Sure, there are quicker, and more efficient ways to record, but I'm in no big hurry at this point, and I don't have $50,000 laying around to sink into recording gear. And as far as 'guarantees'...
When someone walks into a studio, does the
owner ever give you an "it's gonna be a hit"
guarantee?
I totally agree that a DAW may not be right for everyone, and that for many, they should
hire a studio when they want to do serious recording. But there are thousands of us who
are very content making decent recordings on
our cheap little systems, and gain great satisfaction from it. As for me, I'm glad
I learned to fish!

PEACE

Originally posted by SonOfSmawg:
...I wouldn't call recording on 001 "walking out on a frozen lake with a hook and a line".

You're right... that's a Hell of a lot easier to figure out than PTLE! LOL

Let's say you've got really bad tooth ache and you call up your friend who has just purchased a shiny new pair of pliers and studied a bit of dentistry on the cable Health Channel. He offers to "fix" your pain for a "lot less" than the big time dentist dude that you normally go to.

Do you jump into your car and visit your friend for his treatment that's "just as good" as the big guys?

Mark Plancke

Mark, we're not comparing things to that here. We're talking about professional engineers and future musicians in general that use modern tools, one being a DAW
If you think DAW's are a pair of pliers, start reading more.

In the next year PT for sure and others to follow like Soundscape, Nuendo, Logic etc. will be the backbone of 90% of all digital editing that goes on in BIG STUDIOS (if there are any left "making money").
To play, promote, transfer studio data to other professional studios around the world a DAW will be the logical route not to rule out probably the "only" supported universal format for exchanging real-time sessions through companies like http://www.rocketnet.com . Online music commerce, digital watermarking and thousands of indie artists using DAW's are reasons to start reading more about the future of the recording business.

Big is not better. More wires are not better.

Computer, the internet, DAW's and e-trade is what's coming.

Plan ahead or you will be sitting on a BIG STUDIO Console scatching your head sadly realizing that it ain't worth too much more than an impressive looking desk that you can show people.

I know I won't be buying one and, I know that if a "BIG STUDIO engineer" told me that big desks are the way to go this century I would think twice about his knowledge of the business.

Right now I can do 90 % of all the work needed to produce and market a world class album for thousands of dollars less than BIG STUDIOS can; graphics and on-line marketing to boot!. put me side by side with a big desk and I will win 90% of the business.

Who sounds better is not what this is about anymore.
The only thing that we indie DAW studios are faced with now is distrubution politics.

That's the real battle coming.LOL

------------------
zod

Originally posted by zod:
Mark, we're not comparing things to that here. We're talking about professional engineers and future musicians in general that use modern tools, one being a DAW

Okay, so you've missed the analogy. That's cool.

I get my share of mixing work from small DAW based studios. It's one of the things you have to do to survive in this industry. In my experience most everything coming out of small DAW based or Mackie/ADAT studios is just that... small sounding.

There's a place for every type of studio. Musician owned studios excell at certain types of production as do small ADAT/Mackie based studios. There's also a place for a big commercial studio with big rooms and good acoustics. Telling each other one or the other is going away is simply crazy.

Mark Plancke
------------------
[url="((deadlink))[/url]
Windsor ON, Canada

mp@soundtechrecordi…[/email] (edited January 01, 2001).]

Mark, not a problem.

You make using a DAW sound like a sacrifice or like cleaning dishes or something like that.

More on my thoughts, not replying to your comments.

I think the majority of people that used digital samplers, older DAW's (other than PT at least) still think that the quality is grainy like 8 bit.

Digital recording takes a different knack or approach when tracking. It's not forgiving like analog. You can't drive the meters into red. You need room for air in the levels.

I think the direction of RO, this forum and myself are looking ahead. This is why I like it here. It's different than the DUC. friken egos or newbies with startup problems is the majority of most topics. I like it here because the topics are forward thinking and diverse.

I think the big thing that everybody is missing when it comes to talking about DAW's is, Big Studios or old school engineers feel like they are being attacked every time someone starts talking about the future of recording studios. They come barging in yelling "no way man, daw's are only good for editing, their sound is thin and so on"

I really don't care about the sound difference anymore. It's close enough for me, (but, I know how to find the sweet spot using PT) The big question and advantage to Digital Audio Workstations is, recording without spending a million bucks and, editing to the limit if needed and the power of multimedia in one system.

By next year do you think the sound difference is going to keep musicians from buying more DAW's?
Are Big Studios going to be doing more indie releases?

I bet more and more DAW studio will be popping up , going online, jamming, self promoting etc.
Musicians will ignore all the talk about how big analog sounds.

I compare this to opera and rock and roll

SSL and Pro Tools

Old and New

Piano and Keyboards

acoutic giuitar and electric

and so on

What sells and works, popularity, and how things blend into the system is the way to go from here. We win if we go with the grain and find our niche. If you are a freelance or a guy depending on work from Big Studio work, start planning for a layoff or start promoting how you can make DAW's sound better in a positive way at a reasonable price.

It's just a matter of years before the computer will control everything.

------------------
zod

Originally posted by zod:
Mark, not a problem.
You make using a DAW sound like a sacrifice or like cleaning dishes or something like that.

Change DAW to DIGITAL and you'll be closer to the truth.

Digital recording takes a different knack or approach when tracking. It's not forgiving like analog. You can't drive the meters into red. You need room for air in the levels.

Agreed. But even with careful tracking habits and conservative levels I still feel that digital lacks the air that a good analog machine gives you. Not to mention the other benefits from tracking analog that certain types of music benefit from.

I tracked on ADAT's for many years when I started my studio. I was constantly pushing their performance by upgrading opamps, dacs, power supply bypassing, etc, etc. I was constantly fighting the machine to get the sound I wanted, it gave me a headache most of the time.

When I upgraded to a 2" 24 track MCI I instantly noticed how much better things sounded including all my outboard gear. My headache instantly went away and I wasn't fighting the machines anymore. That sealed it for me. Good Analog is hard to beat.

I think the big thing that everybody is missing when it comes to talking about DAW's is, Big Studios or old school engineers feel like they are being attacked every time someone starts talking about the future of recording studios. They come barging in yelling "no way man, daw's are only good for editing, their sound is thin and so on"

Not in practice, Pro Tools is used everyday in big studios, mostly for editing and comping multiple takes like you say. 9 times out of 10 these tracks are dumped into Pro Tools from an analog deck and in this role I find digital to be pretty good at preserving what's on tape.

I really don't care about the sound difference anymore. It's close enough for me, (but, I know how to find the sweet spot using PT) The big question and advantage to Digital Audio Workstations is, recording without spending a million bucks and, editing to the limit if needed and the power of multimedia in one system.

You're not the only one who doesn't care about the quality of the sound. Look at the poliferation of bad sounding MP3's, look at the dumbing down of audio in general. They've been saying digital is perfect for the last 20 years but they seem to "improve" it every couple of years. Strange indeed.

By next year do you think the sound difference is going to keep musicians from buying more DAW's?

Nope.

Are Big Studios going to be doing more indie releases?

If the budget is there, sure.

I bet more and more DAW studio will be popping up , going online, jamming, self promoting etc. Musicians will ignore all the talk about how big analog sounds.

Maybe, but those with a budget and a clue will want to mostly likely track analog with lot's of classic outboard equipment. Let's face it, it's the sound that everyone grew up listening to, it's kind of like an old friend. Listen to Lenny Kravitz his 24 bit Pro Tools recordings sound like ass, must have got a bunch of freebies for that one. Of course he's got a big assed API console that he tracks through, that doesn't hurt but it still doesn't sound as good as his other records.

It's just a matter of years before the computer will control everything.

They've been saying that for 20 years.

Mark Plancke
[url="((deadlink))[/url]

mp@soundtechrecordi…[/email] (edited January 02, 2001).]

After following this thread for a while I thought it was about time to join in.

There is a good analogy here between musicians and engineers/producers. I agree that the most important attributes of an engineer/producer are: The ears and the imagination/creativity. Likewise for a musician the most important atrributes are musicality and technique. Let's take the case of the violinist. A good professional will need a good violin, maybe $40K worth. A $1m Stradivarius to this professional is a waste of money because it doesn't make that much of a difference. However, there are a small number of great violin soloists. These are people who are pushing the boundaries of musicality and technique. For them being so close to the boundaries, the relatively small difference of a Strad quality violin becomes an important factor.

For musicians who record or the good professional engineer/producer the $1m worth of studio gear is a waste of money. However, regardless of the "dumbing down" of audio, there will always be a demand for the very highest quality. For this reason there will always be respect and demand for the very finest engineers/producers (golden ears) and a demand for the very finest audio gear to realize their talent.

It maybe that a number of years in the future the "very finest audio gear" will be a DAW and the "Golden Ears" will switch to using one. However, there are currently a lot of the relatively insignificant differences between DAWs and the high end gear which will take many years for the DAWs to catch up with, that's if they want to.

While the differences between different quality violins is well understood it seems to me that the differences in audio gear is not. This is evidenced in the arguments between users of Host based DAWs and users of systems like PT TDM/Soundscape. The host based users can't understand the huge leap in price of say a TDM system over a Digi 001 system, seeing only relatively minor differences between the two.

If you don't feel that TDM is worth the extra over a host based system, or that the very high end audio gear is not worth the extra over a TDM system, then IMHO, you don't need the higher quality, for you it would be a waste of money.

Greg

Originally posted by Greg Malcangi:
For musicians who record or the good professional engineer/producer the $1m worth of studio gear is a waste of money. However, regardless of the "dumbing down" of audio, there will always be a demand for the very highest quality. For this reason there will always be respect and demand for the very finest engineers/producers (golden ears) and a demand for the very finest audio gear to realize their talent.

It maybe that a number of years in the future the "very finest audio gear" will be a DAW and the "Golden Ears" will switch to using one. However, there are currently a lot of the relatively insignificant differences between DAWs and the high end gear which will take many years for the DAWs to catch up with, that's if they want to.

Thanks for putting it most eloquently Greg.

Here's something interesting I found that may be of interest. This is in reference to the recent AES show and an exhibit entitled "When Vinyl Ruled". I think it was a shock to many people when they realized how "dumbed down" audio has been in the last 40 years.

Don't know what was used on those sessions,but heard some really goose bump stuff Elvis at the AES convention demo "When Vinyl Ruled".

Three track 1/2" Ampex through a custom tube board that had been modified from a radio console, Macintosh amplifiers and three Altec Coaxial monitors. (604?)

The Source tape had been recently transferred from the original three track master.

The Equipment was typical of state of the art circa 1958.

Richard H. Kuschel

And in response Bob Olhsson said

I understood it WAS the original live three track safety master that had been made simultaneously with the mono and stereo masters.

I and many other people left that demonstration really pissed off about
how far backwards our industry has gone in utterly basic recording technology after 40 years of new bells and whistles.

People frequently knock every single piece of that signal chain as "obsolete" but taken ALL together it did a far better job than anything you can buy new at any price. And this was a no-brainer, nothing subtile at all, like comparing a blackface Fender Twin Reverb to a first generation transistor guitar amp where the WHOLE rest of the AES
show was that wimpy transistor amp.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery

Mark Plancke
soundtechrecording.com

Originally posted by zod:

I think the big thing that everybody is missing when it comes to talking about DAW's is, Big Studios or old school engineers feel like they are being attacked every time someone starts talking about the future of recording studios. They come barging in yelling "no way man, daw's are only good for editing, their sound is thin and so on"

Well, I don't see any big studios barging in, but I can tell you one thing. If they do, they'll be more interested in helping others learn how to accomplish more with what they've got then disparaging one's abilities based on the equipment used. The problem is that most people who start with digital don't understand the basic premise of proper recording techniques including mic selection, positioning, judiscious use of EQ, FX and dynamics, the soundstage, acoustic room anamolies, the difference in mic pres, etc. The list could go on, but the point is that it's the music that's important, not the tools, and it's the experience that drives the music, not the equipment. A reasonably advanced engineer knows this and works accordingly in either environment. A reasonably advanced engineer also has experience in multiple environments where there are circumstances beyond their control, yet they still come up with consistently good product.

How this relates is this. The argument is that DAWs are taking over, and to a large degree, given that A) digital equipment is now cheap enough that everyone can get in on it, and B) digital usage seems to somehow preclude the requirement of knowledge and experience in order to produce a product, it appears that most people are now going to see DAWs as something which they are not. Having a DAW does not make one an engineer. Only experience does that. Having a DAW does not mean that the owner has musical qualifications, which, while not a necessity certainly are an advantage. And having a DAW with it's vast editing capabilities immensely eases the requirements on whom one records, because it's now no longer necessary to have talent that can sing, or play, or even write a decent tune.

So just what are these major benefits that having a DAW produces? Over the top recording and mixing techniques that drive audio into a new low of musical quality, not because of some inherent problem with digital, but because of the inexperience often found behind the mouse. With even the basic dynamics found with 16/44.1 CD quality people are shredding the top 3% of that dynamic range trying to get everything as loud as everything else. It's a mismatch of digital quality vs quantity of experience.
And it's definitely a mismatch in thinking for one to view a DAW as anything but another tool in the toolbox. DAWs don't make music, musicians do, and it's the engineer's job to capture it as close to how the talent wants it as possible. On the flip side, Tape doesn't make music either, but IN GENERAL, those experienced in tape usage are in better shape to capture the music, not because of the tape, but because of the experience.

So I'm completely satisfied that my clients come here because of what I can do with what I have, but when the going gets tough and I have to face my limitations, I'll recommend using a facility that doesn't present those limitations to my clients. I don't present a threat to these facilities and they know it. They aren't running scared. If anyone should be running scared it's me and those like me that have invested a lot more money than should need to be invested in order to make as little money as I do. My last job only required a few suits, and attache case and constant upgrading of knowledge with a hell of a lot better pay. Sometimes I feel like it would have been better to be a ditch digger because there are no requirements to upgrade your shovel. And that's because experience tells us it's the proper tool for the job.

------------------
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

I agree with you all if we are talking about engineers here.

I think most of you are missing the focus here. I still see the majority of you as defensive.

You are going on about your personal experience. (I don't mean your not welcome) Same thing on the DUC. "Big Studios" going on and on.

I this see the topic in a very different way. I like what's coming and don't care about the sonic differences anymore. The sonic differences aren't going to make us more cash. That's the truth here.

The music scene is changing and I'm going with it.

This topic is not about the songs quality, This topic is not about your years of experience.
This topic is about the future of the daw and where it's going to take us.

I'd rather see some positive conversations on the future rather than how great the old engineers are. golden ears etc. bla bla bla.

I already know how to mix

Let's talk about things we can use in this new journey?

Can someone please pass the rose coloured glasses. I think Zod is wearing his pair out.

Mark Plancke
[url="((deadlink))[/url]

Mark, that was uncalled for. You made some good arguments, let them stand up for themselves. Or make new arguments. Petty swipes are unneccesary pollution.

Zod, the topic is "major studios versus home studios". That seems a bit more contentious than "where will the DAW take us". Please, let's start a new topic if you want to explore possibilities within a theoretical DAW-only world. This topic is about the very real technological upheaval going on right now. Don't stand in the crosshairs and complain when someone takes a shot.

Carry on!

------------------
------------------------------
Ang1970 is:
Angelo Quaglia,
AQ Productions

http://www.recording.org
RO, created for musicians by musicians.

Hi Zod,

>

It's good to hear someone who is so sure of the future direction of the music scene. But what if the future isn't MP3, what if it's SACD or DVD-A? If these high resolution/quality formats take off your antipathy towards sonic differences could well relegate you to the amateur league.

>

Sorry, if this were true why are there so many musicians, composers and record companies paying $3,000 a day for the large commercial recording studios? Now if your studio is DAW only and you have a relatively full schedule of clients each paying $3,000 a day, then I for one would take your arguments more seriously.

Lastly, your message seems to me to have proved the point I was trying to make in my previous post.

Greg

Okay, I see I'm a tad..hehehe of this topic but it is relevant.

Greg, man if your making $3000 a day and it's paying for the house with extra in your jeans my hat off to you!

I don't think any format is here to stay. But what I do think (not know, ) is the trend in the music scene is changing. I'm not sure of anything but I sure see allot of guys worried how to pay bills and those guys are sitting on big desks.

I strive and always have for the finest sound.
It used to be a novelty to be able to burn CD's right? Get what I'm talking about. It kept me busy and paid for a holiday just on that.

Things are moving along and the only thing I see is online music. What's rocketnet all about? I see a rally happening here.

I know so many kids that spend hundreds of hours saving songs to hard drive. They have THOUSANDS of songs on file and never paid a cent for them.

Thanks for the cheep shot Mark.
rest my case

zod,
I'm with you, Brother. You are not OT in your postings, so stick to your guns. The
engineers and producers on RO are very informative and helpful, but us 'little guys'
really hit their sore spot when we talk about
doing the DAW thing ourselves instead of
filling the pockets of established studios.
I can't blame them. But, I believe that they know the reality. The writing is on the wall.
It's obvious that they will even stoop as low as taking cheap shots to try to squash the topic. Their continued defensive attitude just continues to prove our point!
Rock-on, Brother. Fight the good fight. The
DAW evolution/revolution is in full swing,
even here on RO, and THEY know what's inevitably going to happen...

Producers and Engineers,
I want to thank you for your point of view, in this forum and all others. Without you guys, the RO wouldn't be here. I'd like to ask you to exercise patience with us
'little guys' as we continue to learn. You
were all newbies at one point, too, but the
times have changed since you were in our
position. Technology has advanced in leaps
and bounds in the last few years, and it's
going to continue to snowball for years to come. With all of the DAWs that are being sold, there are going to be more and more newbies around, and they will all need help and guidance.
The RO is supposed to be for the advancement of our craft, not a place for
professionals to belittle newbies, dissect their posts and trash them out-of-context,
and treat them like they're stupid.
The DAWs are going to continue to flood the market, musicians are going to continue to buy them, and 'established' studios may
suffer for it. That's the reality of it. So
either come to grips with it, or ignore it,
it's up to you. But please don't take your frustration with this situation out on the newbies. I'm only asking you to act like the
'professionals' that you are. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

*****************PEACE*******************

Hi SonofSmaug,

Although I agree with much of what you said, I feel that you have missed where I at least am coming from.

>

No they haven't. For 20 years technology has been making it cheaper to record and produce music. As the development of computer technology has increased so has the number of people who can afford to buy the equipment and set up a home studio. It might seem to the newbie that relatively cheap host based DAWs are changing the face of the recording industry but in reality the status quo hasn't been affected. The status quo for decades being a steady evolution of the recording industry led by technology.

>

I know, I've spent tens of thousands buying it! I'm certainly not against DAWs, with the exception of a few bits of outboard gear, all my work is done on a DAW and I'm very happy with it. However, I also have to work closely with commercial post houses and top recording studios. From this experience I am able to compare and see my weaknesses as an engineer/producer as well as the weaknesses in the equipment I own. And make no mistake, there are a number of weaknesses, even with my Mix++ PTools/ProControl system.

>

I'm not frustrated with the situation. As I said earlier the situation hasn't really changed. What frustrates me is that there are a number of newbies out there who don't seem to realize that they are newbies. If I offer a differing opinion, instead of trying to understand why I'm saying what I'm saying they will often just dismiss my opinion, under the preconception that I am either unaware of, and/or scared of new development. In reality I am pushing along and investing in new technology at a much higher level than the vast majority of newbies.

I see the developments in DAWs much the same way as I saw the development of MIDI. MIDI, cheap synths and samplers suddenly made a huge difference in what was possible on a modest budget. Although they have improved beyond recognition, even 20 years later, for many situations MIDI synths and samplers are a poor second best to what used to be the only way, hiring a quality musician/s. This doesn't stop me using MIDI, it's a useful tool to have available, but I am realistic about it's strengths and weaknesses and how and where to use it. The same is true of DAWs. They may eventually be able to compete with or even surpass the more traditional high end gear. When that day comes, great, I will be one of the first in line to buy it. However that situation has not been reached yet and like with MIDI I can't see it happening for a long time, if ever. I believe this due to my knowledge of available products along with my many years of experience of technological innovation in the recording industry. It has nothing to do with being defensive or scared of a hoard of newbies with DAWs. If anything the reverse is true. The more people using and learning about engineering and producing, the more people out there that can appreciate the attention to the detail I try to put into my work.

Greg

Greg,
You make some valid points, but you were not the one that my post was mainly addressing. As usual, your postings are
helpful, concise, and objective.
The one thing that you said that I still disagree with is that things are relatively the same as 20 years ago. The impact that MIDI had was not of the same scope as the DAW. I got my first TEAC 4 track real to real in 1976. It did not give me near the
tracks or features of a big recording studio of that era. You can make a lot better recordings now, on a shoestring budget, than
you could back then. Your point is well-taken
as to the experience factor, and the DAW is just a tool, but at least now the little guy has better tools to work with, closer to the
tools that the big guys have. $5000 will get you a great rig, now, but $5000 wouldn't get you much back then. And $5000 was worth a lot more then! Plus, having this caliber of tools, more guys (like myself) will have better motivation to learn more and progress.

Hi SonofSmaug,

>

It may not seem like that now but at the time it did. Think of all the drumming sessions that have been lost to drum machines. It's not just the drummers, think of all the engineers and studios that used to spend 2 or 3 days recording the drum tracks. MIDI didn't just affect the studios but also the musicians.

>

Yes, that's exactly my point. This has been the case for decades. 10 years ago you could make a lot better recording on a shoestring budget than you could 20 years ago. And 10 years from now you will be able to make a better recording on a shoestring than you can now. Nothing has changed. Ergo, status quo.

Greg

Well said. The rate of change is what changes, to stand still is to go backward. I started cutting 2"tape w/a razor (wrist kit), and now with a pen/mouse. What we DO is the same, how we do it, and how quickly we do it, changes. Technology cannot be stopped, but we as consumers & users must decide (with our $$)the direction of audio. MP3s have their strengths & weaknesses, as will DVD-A. But about studios - the majors will survive, and the small "project" studios (can't wait for a new name for it)will thrive. Just like midi, technology cheapened (made less $$) the ante to make multitrack music at home. You could fire your band, play all the parts, arrange, and take YEARS to do it. The result? Everybody became a musician overnite. 15 years later, talent and perseverance prevailed (as usual).A lot of people went back to their day jobs, but midi stayed. Music changed a little, production values & techniques changed a LOT. This is the same path that ADATs and Mackies and now PT & Nuendo, et al, will run. Anybody can afford to build a digital studio at the house now. So? Same thing, talent & perseverance & luck will rise to the top. The best gear will stay, the trends will... change. Staying with it is half the fun. OK, more than half. Being creative & productive is the key. The AES playback of The King WAS impressive, but I've been privy to some sessions to Studer 800s and X880s with Apogees that were no less AMAZING. There is no substitute for a great engineer. Same goes for players. Would you use a sequencer drum track, or JR? Sampled bass or Nate East? See who the guys are that are mixing the top 20/40 singles. They (and we) will decide how small & large studios will fare in the future. Hey, you're soaking in it!

i think its the people that make any of this gear go....

what were talking about here is balance.
this means a lot of things.to me it means that if i have tremendous resources im going to get the absolute best. if i have limited resources im going to figure out what compromises i can live with-
so what does this mean????

this means that if im michael jackson or metallica i can pick a studio and move in there for a year or 2 until i leave with what i want.

this also means that if im an obscure artist i may struggle even booking a week in that studio-

for this obscure artist then theres these questions:

will i reap the benefits of these professionals and their splendid equipment in that little of time?
or
would i be better off renting a house setting up a daw and spend a year on it myself..........

i think personally idf rather use my 001
and set up shop in the basement, as that would allow me to add indulgant touches that would be otherwise missing....

but if i had the resources id be in the fanciest studio with the best engineers that would put up with me.

the main component in this is TALENT.
if you really understand your gear you know its limitations. this means you can then work around those limitations.
so good results can be acheived with very little.......

ive heard all analog recordings that sound much worse than some better examples of digital recording.and the same is true vice versa....

so for analog vs. digital id say if i understand the nature of these tools and i have a vision then the end results i desire will lead me to wichever choice is appropriate.

for daw vs big studios-this is a no brainer,
if you can afford to go all the way in a big studio ,you will have to make far fewer compromises......

but if your not a superstar then either way is a compromise-
compromise 1 is time in a $$$ studio
compromise 2 is equipment and engineering ability using a daw in the basement-take your pick

clients pay studios bills.if there are $$$ clients there should be $$$ studios-

personally id rather rent a house and set up shop so i can acheive perfection than
book a week or 2 in a studio and be looking over my shoulder at the clock the whole time.

Or better yet, hire someone to come to your studio and mix a track or two. As an assistant engineer, I learned more from others than I could've from 100 years of home-schooling. Invest in yourself as an artist, whether mixing or composing is your art. I can "play" a console or compressor/EQ and automation much better than a 61 key synth - so I do. Balance is life, and a good life has good balance (like a great mix...)

Robert J and Super C,
Great posts. Your ideas of balance are on
the money. I like the idea of perhaps hiring
an engineer to come into your own studio to
give suggestions and mix a couple. That would
be very educational/helpful. I may just do that myself.

Right-on guys!

I'm, new in town here, but while I'm printing some EQs I thought I'd add a bit to a pretty well covered discussion.

As long as there are big labels and stars there will be big studios. Particularly for sessions with high ticket players, its hard to trust the home environment. When the players on the floor are 1000/day and up...there needs to be some level of accountability, and the big studios provide that.

The real at risk places are the ones in the middle....like mine, lol.

My place is a two room commercial facility 90 minutes from Manhatten. My biggest problem is getting all the work done without annoying everyone...and one of the reasons for that is my good relationship with all the home studios. Because I am free with information, and will help them solve their problems, within reason....they ALL come here when they know they are past what they can do at home. I view my place as a hub...and it works.

The fact is, every project and client have certain amount of money attached to them. If you try to help the client get the best product for that money....that client will be back again and again. If that means you show how he can...say, record vocals well at home, them fly the results back in for a mix at your place...so be it. It keeps him involved with you. And when there is more budget...he will spend it with you.

Fighting change is a waste of time.....always has been. Go with the flow....

Vic Steffens
http://www.horizonmusicgroup.com

I have a couple of things to add.

First many of you guys seem to want to make this into a "Us vs Them" kind of thing. I find that sad, especially if you want "pro's" to contribute to this forum. You are not fostering any educational value what so ever by taking that kind of stance.

Secondly, the recent poliferation of home studios has only seemed to contribute more durge to the music scene. It's especially easy for almost anyone to create "music" and distribute it. Go to MP3.com and you'll find 98% of the music there is crap IMO.

Thirdly, does anyone find it odd that this forum comes under the heading of "Pro Talk" and features a large SSL console on the top of the page. Not to mention the site intro page having a picture of the owner in a large studio. Strange...

Mark Plancke

mp@soundtechrecordi…[/email] (edited January 15, 2001).]

I think we need to rename the title of this topic to:

"The Future of the DAW"

My 3 year old daughter has a $100 classical guitar, I own a PRS worth $7000. People clap when "I" play either of them.

Maybe we are missing the point here.

This topic isn't called "The future of major studios verses "amateur" home based Pro Tools/DAW studios" but I do see why it is so intense. Big changes are coming.

If DAW studios need that extra warmth etc. to "sell" a song, then that's about it, High end analog will keep busy. If I can justify spending the extra coin, I think I would spend the money if it meant selling more records. As far as engineering goes, I can mix it better on a PT rig for sure. But I have 20 years experience too.

Sound quality isn't the issue for me as well anymore considering the quality of PT with some good mic pre's and AD converters, I think it's close enough to do business. I am after something more than just the sound quality of high end analog "from now on".

I have to chuckle here a bit because just to the right of that studio on this forum was me sitting at the desk smiling from cheek to cheek because I sold this studio my older PT 24.

I upgraded to a Mix ++.

That studio charges $2500 USD a day to rent. They of course get most of their work from the labels. I would expect most major studios will need to have at least one PT rig on board .
The most obvious scenario (assuming a DAW will never be at par ) is that the "DAW musician" will come to "Big Studios" with the basic tracks that a band or artist has laid down in his or her workshop/home studio/hotel, garage etc. and then dump the works into the professional system for another run at it. hehe!

It's pretty safe to say that I think the end product very soon will come out of a PT rig or other very high quality DAW's that hooks up to the web.

Why? because I think record sales will be on-line...Digital if ya know what I mean.
The big question is, will the majors control the e-commerce music sites like they do airwaves? If they do, then going through them will be the same as usual. Pretty much necessary for most of us unless we break the "mould" and start a revolution.

I often wonder if the majority of profitable music will be used more and more for attracting advertising on-line. It's certainly not selling in stores like it used to be. It seems those days are changing. mp3 and napster has been instrumental in that revolution. It's hard to explain where I'm going with this one but I'd love to get some comments on this topic. "The Future of the DAW" RO is planning an extention of this site called http://www.dawworld.com

I believe aol owns Warner Bros. but not totally sure. What do you all think about that marketing strategy?

The hole thing is just simply a argument about Quality vs. Quantity. The need for quality is going to be there always, the need for quantity is increasing --BUT-- .

quality rules!! that does not mean quantity sucks!!

quantity is good too!!

I like dis Bear guy......

Anyway...the one fortunate addage that sums up a lot of this is:

"there is never enough money to do it right the first time..but always enough money to fix it later."

As long as the Sam Ash's et all of the world keep convincing musicians that a VS880 and an SM57 can replace the Hit Factory, Mutt Lange, Tom Lord-Alge, and George Marino....or (your fav studio. fav producer, fav engineer, fav mastering guy)......I'll have work.

Around here I've already seen the I'm gonna buy a DAW and replace everyone thing peak. Musicians are getting tire of going back to Sam Ash et al....asking why doesn't my X sound like Z...only to be told..

"you have the wrong preamp" followed by..."you have the wrong compressor", followed by..."you need more plug ins", ad infinittum.

I think DAWs are great....but I'm busy and not in a panic over it. People make or break records, not computers.

I have some doubts about even getting into this discussion..seeing as that I have minimal experience and minimal gear. However, you have to start somewhere and I've decided to sort of do that now. All that I know is that cheap is all I can afford, being a broke college student working on around a couple thousand dollars of debt and nearly right out of school. Therefore, my only option is to a)get a really good internship at a really nice recording studio (which is virtually impossible due to my program) or b)doodle at home with my computer-based recording system. The school's facilities (probably having a lot to do with being in the Midwest)are pretty much all DAW's or computer-based. Being a youngin' doesn't help either. I've grown up in the age of computers, and barely know anything else. Since Ang1970 was nice enough to email me with this tip, I just decided to post this and get some feedback. Basically, my point is that I don't have access to great studios and therefore have no experience with them. This leads to the use of strictly digital low-end products. Any reactions? Please don't eat me alive!!

Muse, you should start a new thread for that, just to keep things organized properly.
Best place would probably be the Newbie Forum.
(Dead Link Removed)
Press the "Post New Topic" button ( )

Cool discussion...!

In the Uk, hundreds of studios are closing down, mainly due to people having DAW's. The big ones, such as AIR and Metroplis are still going, but an engineer at Metroplis told me about people spending less time in there then they used. I.e. lots of pre-production and spending say only a week in total to finish it off.

Two examples come to mind (in the uk that is) about personal studios doing there "thang". One, Producer steve levine using logic, apogee adc, mackie 24/24. Does most of his work in this "package". Seems to work for him. A band called Morcheeba have all there stuff done in their pro-tools studio. Their work with George Michael and other "big" stars were all in this small studio.

What I'm getting to is that the project (home) is affordable and quality as good. Surely, if it commercially makes sense the record companies will catch on? Like someone mentioned hire in an engineer and you can make great sounding music.

IMHO, The big, BIG studios will be around (esp. for orchestral stuff etc.) but the home DAW makes sense in most ways.

I met some students at SAE, and a lot of them dreamt of working with a big act in say Abbey Road, but soon changed to having a well equiped studio and having experience that way rather then making tea for everyone!

Let the discussion continue!!

mm

From my standpoint it appears that many people with host based DAWs in their homes are deluding themselves. And because of their inexperience they don't realize they are deluding themselves.

I'm not trying to be insulting, we were all inexperienced at some stage in our careers. In my case, I've been sorely inexperienced at many stages of my career! In fact, the knowledge and experience I’ve gained over the years serves as a constant reminder of how ignorant I am of many of the facets of creating a recording.

One of the big misconceptions appears to be the belief that host based (native) DAWs are not that far away from high end gear and that with almost unlimited time and dedication one can learn to be a talented recording engineer. Wrong! The best one can hope for in this situation is to become talented at certain aspects of engineering. However, there will always be huge gaps of almost total ignorance of other extremely important factors. Let me give you an example: Forget about DAWs, A/D Converters, mixing desks and effects units for a moment. What’s left? In the case of a major studio it’s probably about a $1m (or more) mic collection and the best acoustics and monitoring system that money can buy. The major studios all have hall sized live rooms with excellent acoustics which can be adjusted with sound screens, isolation booths, etc. Using different mics or combinations of mics in differing acoustics provides an enormous palette of tonal colours, presence and feel, etc. The professional engineer at one of these top studios has the knowledge and experience to choose the correct combination to create a certain feel. The proud owner of a DAW in a home studio simply does not have access to more than a handful of these choices and can therefore never hope to do anything more than scratch the surface of one of the most important aspects of being a professional engineer. There are many similar situations across most of the engineering spectrum. I’ll give you another example: Let’s say that you own a host based DAW and want one of your tracks to have a really nice hall reverb. The choices you have are between the various native reverb plugins. If you own a more expensive DAW you also have the further choice to use the slightly better quality TDM reverb plugins, plus you probably have the budget for a very good $2000 - $3000 outboard reverb unit. If we go to the high end though the choices change dramatically. Yes, they can afford $10,000 dollar reverb and effects units but they have a greater choice still. Namely, rather than deciding which reverb unit/plugin is best for the job they have a choice of not having to use artificial reverb at all. After hearing the beautiful gold plate they have in Abbey Road, there are very few plate algorithms in any of the reverb units/plugins that I’ve ever come across that don’t make me laugh! No amount of time, skill or dedication on the part of the home DAW user can provide the huge range of choices available to the professional engineer in a top studio, let alone the knowledge and experience to utilize those choices for musical ends. On top of all this you have the sub category of Mastering Engineer, which is another whole set of skills and equipment. Believe me, a knowledgeable user of a TC Finalizer doesn’t even come close to a skilled professional mastering engineer.

Which brings me to my next point. There has been a lot of talk of talent, a lot of talk about not being bothered by the apparently minor quality differences between high end gear and DAWs and a lot of talk about how the two are unrelated. I disagree! Talent or skill and it’s learning is a strange thing indeed. Learning to be a talented professional musician, sound engineer, athlete or whatever, is basically the same process. You start off making huge obvious mistakes. The process of eliminating these glaring mistakes involves developing objectivity to see what you are doing wrong and how to avoid it. Unfortunately, as your objectivity improves so you become aware of other more minor mistakes or weaknesses and you start working on those. During this process you gradually start to realize that the glaring mistakes you used to make are virtually eliminated but because your objectivity is now so developed, your perspective has changed. Those relatively minor weaknesses now seem like glaring mistakes and you are aware of another whole set of weaknesses which are obvious now but you didn’t notice before. As you can see we are into a vicious circle of improving ability that is counterbalanced by greater objectivity. Because of this, no matter how good you actually are, you almost always feel like there is still a long, long way to go. Let me give you a single example of how this works, even at the very highest level. My wife is a professional percussion soloist and I was with her a when she gave a performance in San Francisco a couple of years ago. The audience gave her a standing ovation and the review in the SF Chronicle the next day read “In a far reaching array of solo works for various instruments, the scottish virtuoso gave what is so far the most astonishing, artistically potent musical event of the year”. However, Evelyn came off stage at the end very unhappy with her performance. Neither the audience, the professional critics nor the other professional musicians present noticed anything wrong. This is because Evelyn’s objectivity is now so developed that her technique itself is hardly even a consideration. A glaring mistake from Evelyn’s perspective is if she doesn’t quite manage to communicate to the audience the exact emotion of any of the hundreds of phases in a particular performance. Regardless of the fact that Evelyn is widely regarded as the best solo percussionist in the world, she herself spends most of her time focusing on her weaknesses (as she sees them) and to a certain extent views all the praise and accolades as the ramblings of the ignorant. And from her perspective she is correct.

This then is my point: Let’s say that someone states they can do everything they require on a host based system and they can’t tell the difference with high end gear, or that the difference is only minor. From my perspective it is possible that a genius could make these differences *almost* disappear but it’s far more probable that this someone simply has one or more vicious circles of development to go before their objectivity has developed to the point where these differences become serious obstacles.

The difficulty with this and similar threads is that the two sides are approaching the same facts, and each other, with a completely different perspective. The newbies see the fantastic capabilities of what is available and of what is becoming available at a relatively low price, and see the experienced professionals as feeling threatened by it. From the top of the range professional’s perspective while the development of host based systems and home studios is mildly interesting they see these systems currently as nothing more than very advanced toys. No more a threat to them than a punk with a blade, when they have the access and the ability to use a whole arsenal, ranging from a fist to a thermonuclear warhead!

Where do I personally stand? Well I’m far enough along the process of development that I can appreciate and understand the perspective of the top guys and been lucky enough to work with some of them. But I only aspire to be a member of that group, I’m a long way from being able to join. You could say that my level of knowledge and expertise allows me to fully appreciate the depths of my own ignorance!

Sorry I’ve rambled on a bit but hopefully there is some stuff here that may help some of you to gain a little more objectivity. For those of you new at this game and/or on a relatively tight budget the host based DAW is an absolute godsend, allowing you to take your first steps into the world of professional recording or soundtrack creation. But however much the manufacturers, their customers and your ears try to tell you otherwise, a host based DAW is still only an entry level product into the world of professional audio recording. IMHO, believing otherwise could seriously limit your future development.

Greg