May Mix Mag - 'Mixing in a Pro Tools World'

[Mark_Knecht]

Interesting article - not unlike a lot of what was in thatt Rupert Neve online interview. Not all bad, but not very flattering.

Take it for what it's worth.

Cheers,
Mark

[Phil O'Keefe]

It didn't seem all that negative to me Mark - maybe I was just reading it different... but beyond about half the folks saying they prefer the "depth" or "warmth" of analog (ie "analog sounds better" - an old debate, to be sure!) most of them seemed really happy with PT - at least its editing - and most considered it a "standard", and most think it's a necessary tool for new engineers to learn.

Oh, and it also would appear tht it was written before the release of HD - at least from JJP's comments about 96K.

Thanks for the heads up. I read it on Mix's website online. Check out the Elvis Costello article too, if you haven't already. Poor guy lost about 50 guitars in a flood. [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

[Sixpence]

He wasn't the only one... Recently in Our lovely Capital and my home city Dublin, U2 lost most of thier instruments and backline when thier dockside warehouse/rehearsal rooms were flooded with storm tides. Loads of other Irish and Irish resident bands lost gear stored in there too..

[Stone Knife]

Y'know, guys 'n gals, I think it's required for people in the upper end of the industry to poo-poo perfectly great sounding technology and equipment. There was an interview in Mix last month, where the Mix reporter made a compliment to Neil Dorfsman (engineer for Sting, Mark Knopfler, Dire Straights, Paul McCartney, Tina Turner, Bob Dylan) ...it went exactly like this:

Reporter:
"Let's talk about the Solas CD that you've just finished up for Shanashie Records. It has a very warm, un-Pro Tools kind of sound."

Neil Dorfsman:
" Funny you should say that; actually, it's a total Pro Tools record. "

Reporter:
"Oops. There goes my "golden ears" rep."

Dorfsman:
"It's my first project recorded start to finish into Pro Tools, which was pretty daunting, because I had my doubts about both sonics and operation."

[Mark_Knecht]

Phil and Stone Knife,
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that it was all negative. Maybe my wording was a bit off on that. I didn't mean to make any statement about the contents of the article, but really only to point it out for interested people.

I found a few things in the article interesting, like the comment about going through an analog tape medium to 'add a little dither'. Also, the comments about lack of depth. That everything is sort of in the front. (Which I do agree with most of the time.)

Anyway, not my intention to support or detract from anything. I was just letting people know it was there to read.

Sorry for any confusion.

And started the Costello article, but it was 1AM and I fell asleep. I'll read it today.

Mark

[Mark_Knecht]

Originally posted by Stone Knife:
Y'know, guys 'n gals, I think it's required for people in the upper end of the industry to poo-poo perfectly great sounding technology and equipment.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stone Knife,
I completely agree. It's all over every industry. High-end stereo, High-end video, cars, mountain bikes. It's human nature, I think, to both believe that more expensive is better and also to get somethign for your money.

To some extent, I'd be really disappointed in the equipment design engineers who design and build really high-end tape decks, consoles and preamps if you couldn't hear any difference in the studio. I'll bet you can.

However, I'm not at all sure that this difference really truly translates to the final CD. Eventually they all get down to 44.1K/16-bit. If these pro guys think digital is bad at the 192KHz/24-bit level, then why isn't it bad at the CD level?

And when does digital sampling become essentially analog? 384KHz? 768KHz? 1.536MHz? If I take a million samples per second of analog data (arguably not necessary) could anyone argue that I don't have enough information to reconstruct the original signal? I think not.

My real meaning here - yea, so I agree that they might be right - you might be able to hear it in the studio, but not at home on the final media.

And my belief: Technology is democratizing the recording industry. We're still at the leading edge, but it's happened already. We're here, making and recording music for less than $2K. There are a lot of businesses, be they equipment manufacturers, studios or high-end engineers, that have a vested interest in making sure they do everything to protect their income streams. They don't like what's happening with PCs. Why should they?

I'm certainly interested in whether people hear buy into this story, no matter which side you're on. It is interesting.

Cheers,
Mark

[B.Ray]

Originally posted by Mark_Knecht:
And my belief: Technology is democratizing the recording industry.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree and I believe it is for the better. Yeah, I've heard all the arguments about "bad" music being produced these days by amature musicians/producers. Well, its true. But, its also true that this technology allows "good" music to be produced by musicians/producers that wouldn't ordinarilly have the opportunity to get their music heard.

You see, there's always been and there always will be "bad" music out there. And there's always been "great" musicians not able to get their music heard because of the beaurocracy & politics of the music business.

This technology allows us to get in the game without having to get permission (i.e. a recording budget & distribution contract) from some record company.

[Stone Knife]

As Mark asks, "And when does digital sampling become essentially analog? 384KHz? 768KHz? 1.536MHz?"
This is why I'm spending $ pursuing SACD discs.. here's a format recorded at 64 times the current CD sampling rate, and offering resolution of 100 KHz!!! almost five times that of current CD's.

The problem is that DVD is already strong for movie formatics (and DVD recorders are moving down in price) and the lesser-spec'd DVD-audio (at 96KHz) may win out over the SACD (at 2.8 MHz) by virtue of this...

There are also the issues of PCM filtering errors (in DVD audio) that theoretically provide distortion that the (SACD's) Direct Stream Digital's simple analog low-pass filtering claims to have solved.

At the (consumer) other end, the MP3@ 56 -or worse- bps is prolific! It sounds awful, and this is the standard lots of consumers are hearing music through, and the antique CD is still IT. That's where the dollars are, that's where the studio's rent and equipment payments come from.

In the final analysis, the dollars will decide what advances are made
-or not made in the quest to, in a way, get back to where we were in 1980. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] ...minus the pops and clicks.

[Mark_Knecht]

B.Ray,
I agree so much. One thing that I think will happen, and probably is happening, is that with this democratization there will be MORE bad music, becuase there are WAY more hacks like me recording and doing stuff for just fun. This will increase the noise level. A lot of the hacks like me will try and get their stuff out there (I don't) and get it listened to. This will drive up the noise floor.

But in the process I believe that some really great musicians will emerge for exactly the reasons you state. No need for permission. And when they don't have to ask fo permission, they won't be bound by things like MTV and 'Being Britney'. And that's really cool!

Cheers,
Mark

[quote]Originally posted by B.Ray:

I agree and I believe it is for the better. Yeah, I've heard all the arguments about "bad" music being produced these days by amature musicians/producers. Well, its true. But, its also true that this technology allows "good" music to be produced by musicians/producers that wouldn't ordinarilly have the opportunity to get their music heard.

You see, there's always been and there always will be "bad" music out there. And there's always been "great" musicians not able to get their music heard because of the beaurocracy & politics of the music business.

This technology allows us to get in the game without having to get permission (i.e. a recording budget & distribution contract) from some record company.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

[Mark_Knecht]

I really look forward to hearing what you think of the format. Some have posted here that it's just a marketing or copy protection scheme. An aquaintance of mine withs for the magazine 'The Perfect Vision' and 'Wide Screen Review'. He swears by it. He also says Sony makes a realyl excellent player for only $250.

Let us know.

Originally posted by Stone Knife:
As Mark asks, "And when does digital sampling become essentially analog? 384KHz? 768KHz? 1.536MHz?"
This is why I'm spending $ pursuing SACD discs.. here's a format recorded at 64 times the current CD sampling rate, and offering resolution of 100 KHz!!! almost five times that of current CD's.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">