DAWs are here to stay and they bring a lot of good features to us, and I like it. But this is what bugs me about working in DAWs:
- Sometimes I feel like everything is not in time, as if the time-alignment between tracks differs from time to time. Especially true to soft-instruments, but audiotracks aswell.
- People with a non-analog background that I occasionally work with are not able to make decisions. Emergency-exit always wide open. Why ? Because it's possible. You can undo everything and always go back to square one. Consequence ? Nothing is ever really finished. There's always the possibility to change anything. Amp-farm instead of a real amp... because then you can change the sound... well, you get the point.
- In the days of 24-tracks, when you had a physical limit of 24 tracks, the tracks were filled up and if there was a free track at mixdown it was either a miracle or it had to be used just for the sake of it. Unfortunately this still seems to be the case with 100+ tracks to use.
- How are we supposed to archive the stuff we record ? If you make a major hit, chances are that somebody wants to do something with the recording in, say 20 years. Open a PT6.0-session in year 2025? I don't think so.
- A&R-people who wants to change everything all the time just because it's possible. "You can have the mix back right away, right ?" No, I mix on an analog desk, with outboard processors. They don't get it. To all of you (euphonix-users) who have analog desks with total recall, never tell the A&R-people that you can recall the mix fairly easily. It will never get finished.
- People listening with their eyes instead of ears. Tip: turn off the screen and hear new things.
- Latency. Even the systems that are supposed to be latency-free are not. A digital process can never be done in no time.
- Overprocessing. People throwing in a million plugins on one channel, on every channel...and the 2-bus. 'coz you can.
- Plug-in-mania. Since when do you REALLY need 30 different compressors, 15 of each ?
- Fixed tempos (metronome). Classical musicians and composers still understand that variations in tempo is a very effective trick. Adaptable to pop/rock aswell if we weren't so stubborn about the fact that editing is easier if recorded material is played to a click.
- Over-edited stuff. If everything is exactly on-beat you don't hear the different sounds anymore. But still, that's a sound on it's own. At least it won't breath life into a track.
- Everybody is suddenly a Mastering-engineer.
There's a lot I like about DAWs aswell ! What do you love/hate about the DAW-way of working ? Have a nice day.
Topic Tags
Comments
by all means: no offense! but i just dislike the prejudiced unde
by all means: no offense! but i just dislike the prejudiced undertone of your statements.. let me explain:
Marcus Black wrote:
- Sometimes I feel like everything is not in time, as if the time-alignment between tracks differs from time to time. Especially true to soft-instruments, but audiotracks aswell.
Maybe you should re-adjust your equipment.. all i gotta say.
Marcus Black wrote:
- People with a non-analog background that I occasionally work with are not able to make decisions. Emergency-exit always wide open. Why ? Because it´s possible. You can undo everything and always go back to square one. Consequence ? Nothing is ever really finished. There´s always the possibility to change anything. Amp-farm instead of a real amp... because then you can change the sound... well, you get the point.
TRUE
Marcus Black wrote:
- In the days of 24-tracks, when you had a physical limit of 24 tracks, the tracks were filled up and if there was a free track at mixdown it was either a miracle or it had to be used just for the sake of it. Unfortunately this still seems to be the case with 100+ tracks to use.
i dont see the problem
Marcus Black wrote:
- How are we supposed to archive the stuff we record ? If you make a major hit, chances are that somebody wants to do something with the recording in, say 20 years. Open a PT6.0-session in year 2025...?? I don´t think so.
archiving digitally is easy and involves no loss (unless you're using cheap discs/drives/whatever) tapes however, degrade in time.
so... 'opening' that reel of yours in 2025?? i dont think so...
Marcus Black wrote:
- A&R-people who wants to change everything all the time just because it´s possible. "You can have the mix back right away, right ?" No, I mix on an analog desk, with outboard processors. They don´t get it. To all of you (euphonix-users) who have analog desks with total recall, never tell the A&R-people that you can recall the mix fairly easily. It will never get finished.
this is something that has to do with the relationship between busines and music which is, apparently, becoming closer
Marcus Black wrote:
- People listening with their eyes instead of ears. Tip: turn off the screen and hear new things.
great advice
Marcus Black wrote:
- Latency. Even the systems that are supposed to be latency-free are not. A digital process can never be done in no time.
like you will ever hear a 3ms. delay... dude, get over it, you can't even hear the difference.
Marcus Black wrote:
- Overprocessing. People throwing in a million plug-ins on one channel, on every channel...and the 2-bus. ´coz you can.
thats just something stupid people do, like the people that connected wrong (analog) cables, back in the days
Marcus Black wrote:
- Plug-in-mania. Since when do you REALLY need 30 different compressors, 15 of each ?
since the quality of the plugins has become more diverse. and since there are more choices and more specialties to choose from.
an improvement IMO
Marcus Black wrote:
- Fixed tempos (metronome). Classical musicians and composers still understand that variations in tempo is a very effective trick. Adaptable to pop/rock aswell if we weren´t so stubborn about the fact that editing is easier if recorded material is played to a click.
True, to a certain extent. (i think you're biggest problem is that there are more in-experienced people nowadays, cuz this is, again, something in-experienced (ok, stupid, if you will) people do.
and.. its a style-thing.
Marcus Black wrote:
- Over-edited stuff. If everything is exactly on-beat you don´t hear the different sounds anymore. But still, that´s a sound on it´s own. At least it won´t breath life into a track.
define life..
- Everybody is suddenly a Mastering-engineer.
true, but what do you expect? everyone spends their money on a DAW, plugins, monitors, software, etc. to do everything on their own. why not give mastering a try?
i am..
all in all, my guess is you're frustrated with the quantity of 'stupid DAW-people' that's been added to your 'analog heaven'
its just something that will cure with time.
I agree with all the points Marcus makes ... right on! As far a
I agree with all the points Marcus makes ... right on! As far as latency and the tracks not sounding in time, I run into this problem too. I found that if I turn off all the plugs before I record a new track, this problem dissappears ...
The one thing Marcus does not mention is the affordabilty factor of new and powerful tools makes it possible for people who have no business recording to do so ... I know this comment reeks of "attitude" and I admit it ... but that doesn't change the way I feel. Much of the reason that there is so much bad music these days is just about any moron with a few grand can set themselves up as a "producer" ... and because the cost of a production facillity is more affordable people with no background in music are recording horrible sounding stuff and then calling it "lo fi" and claiming "I meant to do that" ...
All the while, producers with talent, the players they used to hire and the studios they booked, are all going under because the no talents with thier bedroom studios are "cheapening the product" ...
Kurt Foster wrote: All the while, producers with talent, the pla
Kurt Foster wrote: All the while, producers with talent, the players they used to hire and the studios they booked, are all going under because the no talents with thier bedroom studios are "cheapening the product" ...
In the end, doesn't this create a market for talented producers, players and studios?
bhd2vek wrote: [quote=Kurt Foster]All the while, producers with
bhd2vek wrote: [quote=Kurt Foster]All the while, producers with talent, the players they used to hire and the studios they booked, are all going under because the no talents with thier bedroom studios are "cheapening the product" ...
In the end, doesn't this create a market for talented producers, players and studios?
I don't see how ... perhaps you can explain it to me ??? I see it as work that used to be done well in studios with competent engineers and producers is going to home studios where people just record over and over until they make a mistake that sounds good ...
I understand your point and agree with you. My point is that th
I understand your point and agree with you. My point is that the technology available to home studios has helped expand the recording industry. There are more players playing and more studio's (using the term studio's loosely) recording.
So as the market continues to be flooded with these sonic "mistakes", a hole is created and the demand for a higher quality product increases.
Have some quality studios lost business to the home studio? Probably yes. Will this continue? Probably yes...
Will the really talented studios gain market share in the long run? Probably yes. Because of the competition, there will be studios who drop out... this means that the work from those seeking the higher quality product gets divided among fewer studios.
Marcus Black wrote: DAWs are here to stay and they bring a lot o
Marcus Black wrote: DAWs are here to stay and they bring a lot of good features to us, and I like it. But this is what bugs me about working in DAWs: ...
and everything else you said ... :roll: ... very true
It can be hard to have good discussion on any forum as the depth of knowledge and requirments of the DAW is very diverse.
I tend to keep my recordings below 32 tracks and use the DAW as if it were a 2inch 24trk
I still don't trust the software and constantly check latency and timning between sessions and particularly after an update to system or application
.... :roll: .... I think if we put our heads together we could set up a simple audio test that would show even a 3ms error can be heard
Understanding how the gear works and what errors might be there can help you make choices on how best to use both time and equipment
It is a very cool time to be in audio and am very happy to be in the time of the DAW ... and I love complaining about them too ... 8)
Obviously, this only applies to a percentage (although a rather
Obviously, this only applies to a percentage (although a rather substantial percentage) of recordists:
Latency and other anomalies aside, I think a large part of the whole point is that DAW's, plugs, unlimited tracks, etc., give people with little or no experience a HUGE amount of rope to hang themselves with.
And many of them use as much rope as they can, instead of simply learning how to tie a good knot first.
All this talk reminds me of "the old days" in software developme
All this talk reminds me of "the old days" in software development where a talented programmer had to squeeze the most code into the least memory (a typical desktop business computer had 16 KB ram and 1-720 KB disk drive - yes those are K's), using 1st and 2nd generation languages/compilers, etc. Then came the gush of cheap (high capacity) hardware, 3rd and 4th generation langauges, virtually unlimited resources. I remember when visual basic came out and people were saying "wow, now anyone can 'program', just point and click". Well, they were right, but then 90% of it was crap. The market was glutted with 3rd rate (or worse) software. However, the aforementioned "talented" programmer was now able to do so much more, with more precision, with more robustness, in much less time, etc.
My point being, don't blame the technology, blame the user of that technology. The good talent WILL prevail!
Chuck
wellllllll, here comes the ignorant "home studio" no background
wellllllll, here comes the ignorant "home studio" no background in analog first recorder was a tascam digital portastudio guys opinion....for what its worth. I can EASILY see where you guys stand on the matter and completely appreciate it. but you gotta remember everyone needs a window to get their beginings from and i think DAW's are doing that for people. Also, anyone who has an ear for music can tell the difference between good and bad recordings so let people make overproduced recordings i mean who cares really? i know i sure as hell respect anyone who can wire up an analog board with a shitload of cables / patchbay and stuff VERY IMPRESSIVE i'd love to learn it if i had an opportunity but truth is being a 17 year old at home all i have availability to is digital stuff....i have a digital mixer firewired into a g4 laptop i mean sorry but it's very convienient for me. I would MUCH rather be in a big studio playing with lots of outboard effects and learning how to make crucial decisions without the comfort of the "undo" button. i'm going to school in the fall to study recording engineering and i'm hoping to learn all of that...in the meantime i will stay in my garage recording my and my friends bands demos on my DAW
Kurt Foster wrote: The one thing Marcus does not mention is the
Kurt Foster wrote:
The one thing Marcus does not mention is the affordabilty factor of new and powerful tools makes it possible for people who have no business recording to do so ... I know this comment reeks of "attitude" and I admit it ... but that doesn't change the way I feel. Much of the reason that there is so much bad music these days is just about any moron with a few grand can set themselves up as a "producer" ...All the while, producers with talent, the players they used to hire and the studios they booked, are all going under because the no talents with thier bedroom studios are "cheapening the product" ...
This is a punch in the face to me....yes I have a "Guitar Center" bedroom studio and I suck ass at what I do, but I'm working my ass off trying to be decent at something I love. I don't deny that my work is shit, but I'm trying and doing my best. When I get a client I don't feed them a crock of crap....I tell them that my gear is nothing special and the result will only sound as good as their peformance and gear sounds...if it sounds better we got lucky! They are happy with that because the price is right.
I dunno....it just kinda felt like a cheap shot to the guys that want to break into recording that are very passionate about it as I am. I don't think I'll ever going to be a great engineer or record a breath taking track....but I'm going to die trying. I won't call myself an engineer until I feel that I deserve it. Until then I'm an idiot that spent a few grand at Guitar Center.
Well, nice topic. First of all, I agree in most of the points in
Well, nice topic.
First of all, I agree in most of the points in the first place.
I read here lots of forums, people asking if they should buy a new edition or an old one of a mic, a cable brand, a popscreen, one inch, half an inch from the beater head, every single little step in the audio chain that makes it sound better and I just think that those 3 ms of latency can be fucking your job.
But...I live in Argentina, a country where 1 dollar costs 3 argentine pesos, and 1 EURO costs 4 so, the only way I had when I started recording was buying a PC and start trying to make thigs sound better. Gtarist3587, I was your age when I started doing the same as you, I worked for 5 years before I could study something, went to studios and served coffe, then rolled up cables and then started buying my first mics. I don´t have much gear but I know I use it the best way I can. I spent ours listening to my mixes, not putting hundreds of plug-ins but listening to an EQ to be sure it is not fucking it. I still use the same computer I was using 4 ears ago when I started so I can´t plug so much plugins, and when my PC startes crashing I have to do mixdowns with groups of channels like I were doing ping pong with tape.
Overall, I think DAW tech has given us lots of posibilities, from those who knows really few tips but have a musician ear to listen, to those who really apreciate the most pure sound and can give those tools good use.
Salut!
eFe
Morons can be found behind both the cheapest bedrooms setups and
Morons can be found behind both the cheapest bedrooms setups and the most outrageous audiofile boutique perfectly sonic studio known to man. That doesnt make or break talent. It never has and it never will. If someone wants to invest in a sonic idea perpetrated by the most drooling homerecordist with nothing going at all then it is their privledge to do so.Someone sitting on the sidelines without any direction and calling it one way or another is just noise. If you want to make a difference in what is being heard and seen then go out and do it. You will only achieve as much as your effort will allow and in the end, your success will be determined by nothing other than than the commerce it can generate. If you can succeed in your bedroom to a viable commercial success then you must know SOMETHING....and who's to say its good/bad? Taste is never measured by the price of the spoon.
I am late to the digital world.I CAN most definately 'hear' 6ms of latency in trying to achieve order in a mix. I do not like click tracked songs per se but love the way they edit.(not always true)...I think that making technology available to the masses can only bring the very best to the surface eventually. And create opportunity for talent that would remain undiscovered were it not possible due the price. I take a very dim view of those that think that everybody not involved in the historical rise of recording technology and an adherent to the old-school methodology is simply one of those million monkeys with a typewriter and has no business expressing themseleves to their abilities. Eliteism kills off creativity faster than anything else. Just because someone has 'been there,done that' does not give them exclusive rights to creativity no matter how simplistic,uninspired,or poorly accomplished it may be.
Years ago I attended a few workshops with the late Howard Roberts. He would come out and play a minute or two of incredible guitar....Really Incredible...then he would put it down and not touch it again for a couple of days.And he would teach how to hear....how to appreciate...how to learn...One thing he always said was there were no bad musicians, only those less accomplished and experienced than others, and you never know where youre going to find the next Segovia...
Hmmm, I think blaming the proliferation of cheaper DAWs for the
Hmmm, I think blaming the proliferation of cheaper DAWs for the state of music is going a bit far. If you haven't noticed popular music has always been sh*t for the most part. I'd blame globalization and multinationals for this more than I'd blame some poor sap with a digi001.
I think this is a very exciting time for music. More people now more than ever are dissatisfied with the current state of music, and for the first time regular people have the means to do something about it. Sure you're going to get a lot of crap made by people who don't know what the hell they're doing, but there is still a lot of great stuff being made. But I digress.
Everybody is suddenly a Mastering-engineer.
More power to them! I don't see the harm in wanting to do everything yourself. I've done it and you learn a lot in the process. It's not that I think I can do better than a pro ME... It's just fun to tinker with it and see what it's all about.
People listening with their eyes instead of ears. Tip: turn off the screen and hear new things.
I agree, it is easy to slip into mixing by eye. But that's also true with analog. I've seen people dial in a certain eq setting or comp threshold before they even hit play.
In the days of 24-tracks, when you had a physical limit of 24 tracks, the tracks were filled up and if there was a free track at mixdown it was either a miracle or it had to be used just for the sake of it. Unfortunately this still seems to be the case with 100+ tracks to use.
Man, you're bumming me out. :wink: You had people abusing multitrack with endless bounces back in the 60s and 70s. Those idiots had kids and unfortunately people like that will be around til the end of time. Focusing on the negative aspects of digital is fine but most of these can be said for both analog and digital. Maybe you should retitle your post "The downsides of complete morons working in studios". :P
People with a non-analog background that I occasionally work with are not able to make decisions. Emergency-exit always wide open. Why ? Because it´s possible. You can undo everything and always go back to square one. Consequence ? Nothing is ever really finished. There´s always the possibility to change anything.
Good point. I believe everyone should start off with a 4-track recorder just to get an appreciation for being in the moment. But there were so many times where I would have sold my soul for an undo button. Lot of good stuff erased because I wasn't paying attention. But then, that's where you get that appreciation from I guess. The volatility of analog is exciting, but I wouldn't trade my undo for anything. Well... for a Studer A80 maybe.
:wink:
Davedog wrote: I think that making technology available to the m
Davedog wrote: I think that making technology available to the masses can only bring the very best to the surface eventually. And create opportunity for talent that would remain undiscovered were it not possible due the price.
Very well put.
And doesn't the availability of the technology also help develope the "studio discipline" of the artists themselves. If they spend time cutting tracks and mixing their demo's themselves, they will be better equipped should they need to book some time in a professional facility. It won't be as foreign to them...
Kurt Foster wrote: [quote=bhd2vek][quote=Kurt Foster]All the whi
Kurt Foster wrote: [quote=bhd2vek][quote=Kurt Foster]All the while, producers with talent, the players they used to hire and the studios they booked, are all going under because the no talents with thier bedroom studios are "cheapening the product" ...
In the end, doesn't this create a market for talented producers, players and studios?
I don't see how ... perhaps you can explain it to me ??? I see it as work that used to be done well in studios with competent engineers and producers is going to home studios where people just record over and over until they make a mistake that sounds good ...
Hey Kurt if you truly feel this why are you here on this forum proliferating it, why not keep all your hard earned knowlege to your self and keep all the wanabees in the dark instead of giving them the amo to "cheapening the product", smells like hypocrisy to me.
A dense mix can be a nightmare,(ie a mix with a lotta tracks)It
A dense mix can be a nightmare,(ie a mix with a lotta tracks)It is hell to mix and its easy to get it all messed up and sounding muddy. I oftentimes when presented with a dense mix (brought about by too many tracks available) start by pulling my hair first and then I'll mute just about everything but the vocals, the drums, the bass and the main rhythm instrument such as guitar or piano- then I'll start adding stuff trying to maintain a balance-
Having said that, a dense mix can also be a thing of beauty in competent hands. just listen to any Sting Cds- a lot going on but it is right on the money(IMHO)
Actually I thought the last one (sacred love) was too loud and overcompressed for my taste but what can you do, the man is in the thick of the volume wars and tryting to remain a current act- but still the mix is dense and it still retains a sonic integrity that its hard to find in most dense mixes, specially if done by inexperience engineers-
If you are an inexperience engineer, try to stick to less dense mixes by recording less instruments at tracking time. It is far easier to achieve pleasant and/or proffesional results that way. Or you can do what I do and start muting tracks so i can regain a sense of perspective first, then add things little by little until enough is enough... that is the trick though, knowing when enough is enough and letting it go-
Marcus Black wrote: DAWs are here to stay and they bring a lot o
Marcus Black wrote: DAWs are here to stay and they bring a lot of good features to us, and I like it. But this is what bugs me about working in DAWs:
- Sometimes I feel like everything is not in time, as if the time-alignment between tracks differs from time to time. Especially true to soft-instruments, but audiotracks aswell.
- People with a non-analog background that I occasionally work with are not able to make decisions. Emergency-exit always wide open. Why ? Because it´s possible. You can undo everything and always go back to square one. Consequence ? Nothing is ever really finished. There´s always the possibility to change anything. Amp-farm instead of a real amp... because then you can change the sound... well, you get the point.
- In the days of 24-tracks, when you had a physical limit of 24 tracks, the tracks were filled up and if there was a free track at mixdown it was either a miracle or it had to be used just for the sake of it. Unfortunately this still seems to be the case with 100+ tracks to use.
- How are we supposed to archive the stuff we record ? If you make a major hit, chances are that somebody wants to do something with the recording in, say 20 years. Open a PT6.0-session in year 2025...?? I don´t think so.
- A&R-people who wants to change everything all the time just because it´s possible. "You can have the mix back right away, right ?" No, I mix on an analog desk, with outboard processors. They don´t get it. To all of you (euphonix-users) who have analog desks with total recall, never tell the A&R-people that you can recall the mix fairly easily. It will never get finished.
- People listening with their eyes instead of ears. Tip: turn off the screen and hear new things.
- Latency. Even the systems that are supposed to be latency-free are not. A digital process can never be done in no time.
- Overprocessing. People throwing in a million plug-ins on one channel, on every channel...and the 2-bus. ´coz you can.
- Plug-in-mania. Since when do you REALLY need 30 different compressors, 15 of each ?
- Fixed tempos (metronome). Classical musicians and composers still understand that variations in tempo is a very effective trick. Adaptable to pop/rock aswell if we weren´t so stubborn about the fact that editing is easier if recorded material is played to a click.
- Over-edited stuff. If everything is exactly on-beat you don´t hear the different sounds anymore. But still, that´s a sound on it´s own. At least it won´t breath life into a track.
- Everybody is suddenly a Mastering-engineer.
There´s a lot I like about DAWs aswell ! What do you love/hate about the DAW-way of working ? Have a nice day.
1. All DAW's have latency issues. It is a matter of fact. However, not all manufacturers will tell you what the delay would be in milliseconds or samples, for every possible input/output configuration. And, all software plug-in latencies are averaged, because the in the case of DSP based plugs, the amount of DSP required is equal to the complexity of the math required. You should know your equipment, know how to implement delay compensation, and not rely on automatic delay compensation, because no manufacturer has it right everywhere in their system. So, this is operator error.
2. Indecision is not an analog thing. It is laziness, a character flaw, ADD, or drug induced.
3. In the "days of 24 tracks" people were never limited to 24 tracks. People were making 20 track recordings back in the 2, 3 and 4 track days. They bounced mixes. Queen bounced mixes to super layer vocals, taking all but a little oxide from the tape on those Stephens recorders. Boston hand synced their 24 track machines with a coat hanger to the start buttons and a hand on the take-up reel. Trust me. Nobody has ever been limited to 24 tracks, unless they ran out of ideas, or the ideas turned into stupid ones.
4. A&R people are just that. They have always been like that.
5. People do stare at the screen. So what? We used to stare at the monitors, the plasma meters, the flying fades, the drummers dumb girlfriend (sugar momma).
6. Latency. Nobody says that they have no latency. TDMII and SAW are the two closest to no latency. Everything else has latency. So what? Did you know that there is less latency with a ProTools system, with a basic compressor and reverb plug than there is with a signal going through a patchbay, console, inerted compressor, aux fed and stereo returned outboard reverb unit, then monitor section?
7. Plug in mania? What about the big studios with rooms full of the real thing? Are all colors black and white in your world?
8. I agree about the rest.
That's ok. Let all of the crap music people have crap product. It only helps me stand out further.
6. Latency. Nobody says that they have no latency. TDMII and S
6. Latency. Nobody says that they have no latency. TDMII and SAW are the two closest to no latency. Everything else has latency. So what? Did you know that there is less latency with a ProTools system, with a basic compressor and reverb plug than there is with a signal going through a patchbay, console, inerted compressor, aux fed and stereo returned outboard reverb unit, then monitor section?
???
Supposing all units are analog, the latency would be approx. 0, except for the digital reverb - but then only the wet signal would be delayed... Please explain how a digital rig could have latency lower than a analog system?!
/Daniel
danfor-2 wrote: Please explain how a digital rig could have late
danfor-2 wrote: Please explain how a digital rig could have latency lower than a analog system?!
/Daniel
This is something I've been wondering about recently. We are told that while the electrons in a piece of metal flow (in a DC circuit) or vibrate (in AC) very slowly, the energy through that piece of metal moves at the speed of light (c).
Which would mean that the latency in any practicable analog path would be pretty much zero - if the analog path was a simple piece of metal. But in the example above, there are heaps of gain stages, which aren't simple bits of metal but rather are slices of doped silicon or electron clouds in vacuums or what have you.
From what I can gather, transistors and capacitors necessarily produce a phase shift in signals that are passed through them. This being the case, and 'phase shift' being the functional analog equivalent of digital latency, then it seems that a complex analog signal path does introduce 'latency' issues.
However, I am not at all certain of my reasoning on this: is there anyone on this forum who could confirm or correct this conclusion?
thanks...
I think all the points in the original post are essentially good
I think all the points in the original post are essentially good ones.
To some degree, although i am in principle all in favour of a more egalitarian access to recording technology, I think the issue is mentoring.
Used to be that one needed to learn something to get access... and that access was granted by someone who, one hoped, had something to teach you.
Now anyone with $400 and a computer has a multi-track "studio"... but never gets to see anyone GOOD record anything.
So how does this person learn?
The internet only goes so far... you need to learn swimming in water.
And of course, it's tough to seperate the good advice from the prevailing 'wisdom' that might not be so good.
Yes it was, for example, possible for an artiste to waste time overdubbing endlessly and creating more and mroe tracks on analog.
But at $200 an hour and with a professional producer and engineer there it was less LIKELY.
Not unheard of, certainly, but less likely than someone sitting alone in a basement or a bedroom with an unlimited number of virtual tracks to create.
So now it's the rule, rather than the exception, that one "needs" to do 20 vocal takes to pick from.
Or one "needs" to make every bass drum hit the same level. And time.
People tend by human nature to make things easy on themselves... so we tend to want to record to a click... not because we think it sounds better, but because pasting background vocals, later, will be so much easier to a grid...
and so on.
My problem with DAW recording (which 90% of the time means ProTools) is that so often people let it dictate what they do.. instead of insisting it do what THEY want.
wwittman wrote: To some degree, although i am in principle all i
wwittman wrote: To some degree, although i am in principle all in favour of a more egalitarian access to recording technology, I think the issue is mentoring.
Used to be that one needed to learn something to get access... and that access was granted by someone who, one hoped, had something to teach you.
Now anyone with $400 and a computer has a multi-track "studio"... but never gets to see anyone GOOD record anything.
So how does this person learn?
By listening to albums? Reading? Trial and error? I don't think you actually have to "see" someone record to learn how to make great recordings. I've heard a lot of so called GOOD engineers/producers make a lot of crap. Rick Rubin for one. Have you heard the last two Chili Peppers albums? I swear they're in mono. Which is great if you have one ear. There are people with a good ear and people with no ear at any level of the recording game. Sure, watching a pro work would be a great learning experience, but I don't believe that people who don't have that opportunity should be dismissed as hacks. If it sounds good, it is good. Pro or not. So what if some of us fumble around our gear looking for "that sound". Isn't this how most innovations and techniques were discovered? By accident?
This is something I've been wondering about recently. We are tol
This is something I've been wondering about recently. We are told that while the electrons in a piece of metal flow (in a DC circuit) or vibrate (in AC) very slowly, the energy through that piece of metal moves at the speed of light (c).
Which would mean that the latency in any practicable analog path would be pretty much zero
Ah... Would that be at 0 degrees Kelvin? Superconducted, electricity might travel at the speed of light over metal conduit. In most cases, resistance is a factor and electricity just travels "nearly" the speed fo light. Make all those jumps across stages as well as changes from low impedence to high impedence as you must in the signal chain and 3 ms doesn't sound that hard to produce under analog conditions.
Wiley
Maintiger wrote: Actually I thought the last one (Sting - sacr
Maintiger wrote:
Actually I thought the last one (Sting - sacred love) was too loud and overcompressed for my taste but what can you do, the man is in the thick of the volume wars and tryting to remain a current act- but still the mix is dense and it still retains a sonic integrity that its hard to find in most dense mixes, specially if done by inexperience engineers-
Just wanted to hijack the thread for a moment and comment on this as well. I've been a big fan of Sting since his days with the Police, and I've noticed the same, steady decline in the quality of his mixes due to overdone LOUDNESS. Sacred Love is among the worst, but "After the Rain" was pretty awful, too, sonically, ditto for the release before that (title escapes me at the moment...)
What makes me sad is that I KNOW there's a lot of good stuff on there, and I can't imagine what they're mixing on that hides all that nasty clipping and distortion on this stuff that builds up to such a din. It's really pointless and overkill, IMHO. I like his earlier stuff simply because there's less of that "finalizer" crap on there. (check out "Soul Cages" and "Nothing Like the Sun" compared to the latest; it's really amazing.) I don't know who's convinced him that louder is better, but again, it's just really a sad, waste of great music with that kind of mastering.
wsiler wrote: Ah... Would that be at 0 degrees Kelvin? Supercon
wsiler wrote: Ah... Would that be at 0 degrees Kelvin? Superconducted, electricity might travel at the speed of light over metal conduit. In most cases, resistance is a factor and electricity just travels "nearly" the speed fo light. Make all those jumps across stages as well as changes from low impedence to high impedence as you must in the signal chain and 3 ms doesn't sound that hard to produce under analog conditions.
The latency produced in analog circuits does not even approach the 1 ms mark. Latency in analog can be measured in nanoseconds.
my two pennies. Let's step in the old "Way Back Machine" It's 2
my two pennies.
Let's step in the old "Way Back Machine" It's 20 years ago. Your songs suck, but you're Maddonna, so you can hire the best, record it, and get it sold regardless. Let's say I'm nobody. I have great songs, but I got 5 kids and a job and I live out in the sticks. Do my songs ever see the light of day? Nope. I don't have the connections or the capital to see it happen.
Now fast forward to 2005. Now I can drop 2 months salary on a system, sit at home and make reasonably listenable recordings of my stuff. I no longer have to either have deep pockets, or blow someone who does, to be able to create. It might suck to be you, since you have to watch the stuff being created by unqualified hands, but for me it's a great day.
There's one other aspect to all this cheapening of technology that I think goes largely unnoticed.
We all see the industry changing. We see everybody with a guitar and a song buying a DAW, making music, and putting it on the net. We see artists being ripped off because everything can be downloaded for free and dumped on to an iPod with your other 9000 free songs. The idea that recorded music has value is rapidly disappearing. in fact a young guy once smiled at me and said, "Your generation is the last one that will ever actually BUY a CD." It sounds outrageous, but I think it's true. Human beings don't pay for something they can get free, even if it's wrong.
So in all this seemingly bad news, is there a silver lining? I personally say there is, and it's huge. As recorded music becomes cheap, and even free, I believe live music will experience a surge. There is still no substitute for sitting in a smokey room with a beer in your hand while someone pours their guts out on stage. You can't get that from your computer or CD player. The moment comes, then it goes, then it's gone forever. There's magic in that, and some day, the world may come to appreciate it once again.
At least I hope so...
Cheers
Keith
i think you have a good point there. in reply to it, take a loo
i think you have a good point there.
in reply to it, take a look at this weird new technology by bose.
Keith (took the red pill) has figured it out. The rest of you
Keith (took the red pill) has figured it out. The rest of you....go re-read what he said! :twisted:
The studio/recording biz (like digital photography, do-it-yourself-at-home porno, desktop printing, publishing, online shopping etc), and hundreds of other businesses that have imploded to re-emerge as something similar but totally "new" paradigms, is forever contracting and expanding. Not everyone will survive, not everyone should. There are perhaps a handful of exceptions (big Hollywood soundstages & movie scoring facilities) that are somewhat bulletproof (for now), but even THEY have felt the pinch of changing times. Many big-ticket composers score it all on midi devices until it's time to cut the actual movie soundtrack. (Saves a fortune).
The days of "Studio musicians" are mostly gone as well, (except for the above), the rest of most jingles and pop songs are creations in the virtual world, and there's plenty of folks willing to do it in "project" studios first before spending big bucks in a "real" studio. The place where people actually learn and craft their skills can either be a practice room in a music school, or a bedroom studio equipped with all the latest toys. For making "recorded" music, there's not TOO much difference in the final product unless you listen very very carefully.
But the proliferation of so much "easy as pushing a button" technology does indeed cheapen (or at least make suspect) the product and how it got to your hands - either as a download or a CD. If anyone can do it, is it therefore all that hard to do? Is it even WORTH anything anymore, esp if it's not more than a mouse click to get it right into your ears? (LITERALLY)
Of course, one answer is still INSPIRATION and the creation of a good song to start with. That will never change, no matter how much we mess with it digitally or otherwise. Still, there's that delivery system and "instant gratification" thing going on....
But as Keith said (and I totally agree) REAL LIVE MUSIC is always going to be the one last thing you can't fake. I'm not talking about big, huge Madonna, Ashley Simpson or B Spears productions that are hybrids of those same pre-recordings/real vocals we're already hearing about; I'm talking about 1 or 2 (or even dozens) of REAL musicians in a room, playing together. Acoustic or amplfified, it still comes down to CHOPS, and being able to do it LIVE, with no net. THAT is what separates the kids from the grownups, the posers from the truly talented.
It may get smaller and smaller (for now or forever) but that pool of talent is what is REALLY, FINALLY, going to make careers and a living for people, as the rest of the industry spirals away into whatever it will evolve into, ever tougher to make a decent living at it.
Sure, there are those who will be happy to live in their pods and survive on downloads and take-out food, never really even going outside anymore, watching DVDs and HDTV in what now passes for "Reality" TV and interactive entertainment, but there will ALWAYS be a human need for real interaction, and seeing, hearing, even TOUCHING a real instrument, in front of a real audience.
Once everything is "free", downloadable, instantly, it wont be worth much, and perhaps that's the great equalizer/cosmic joke on all the "Anyone can do it" mentality out there now.
The REAL moment of truth comes when the lights go down, the club/theater/concert hall is quiet, and the REAL artist(s) steps onstage and plays a REAL instrument, with no backing tracks, no gimmicks, no harmonizers, just wood, catgut or metal strings stretched over a wooden box, a drum, a flute, or just the human voice itself, and reveals what it's really all about: Making music.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this basic, fundamental aspect of music is ever going to go away. Not everyone will "Get it", but that's ok....it's probably just as well.
Thomaster wrote: i think you have a good point there. in reply
Thomaster wrote: i think you have a good point there.
in reply to it, take a look at this weird new technology by bose.
Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode.
A Festivus for the rest of us!!!
I'm with you on basically every point. Especially the "Master
I'm with you on basically every point.
Especially the "Mastering Engineer" thing... :lol:
But yeah, such a great tool - SO easily abused. I miss the days of a strip of tape where you screwed up an DID IT AGAIN instead of just copying it from the last verse...