The Mixing/Editing Process at EA

[skinny honkie]

and for people making generic rock on their electric guitars.


what i'm saying is, there's something to be gained and learned from everything.

Fucking A.

[Noah]

Because they do not distinguish between the states of the numbers they work with, their data workflow is essentially recorded simply by being.

Something tells me it's just a little bit different when you record from the outside onto a computer. maybe that's because the signal is transferred from an electrical one to a numerical one. Feel free to disagree.

re. your subjective critique, I invite you to listen to a copy of John Cage's 4'33" on a good stereo in a still room, and then argue to me that novelty can't be serious composition, and vice-versa.

sure, maybe john cage can use a computer to his advantage. But john cage is a complete hack with no talent. Feel free to disagree.

To recap: this is not the A vs D debate.

It became one right around when someone asked about how the process is done at EA vs. Compu-Studio. I usually get involved in these debates.

How's that fifty dollar pre going for ya?

good thing you ask. i haven't gotten a preamplifier yet for the ribbon mic. i have had a string of bad luck with recording equipment, so my setup is quite fucking horrible.
i recently got an old tube preamplifier for $150. it worked pretty well in the tascam porta02 4-track cassette recorder. it will be okay for dynamic microphones.




-noah

[cgc]

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines

What can you do with a computer that you can't with tape?

Edit without destroying the media.
Undo multiple edits non-destructively.
Redo multiple edits non-destructively.
Change pitch without changing time.
Change time without altering pitch.
View multiple time scales simultaneously.
Edit audio with the same precision and effort no matter what the time scale.
Convolve time domain Impulse Responses like that fancy Altiverb.
Convolve the frequency domain using FIR for phase shift free EQ.
Perform analysis and processing using FFT.
Granular synthesis.
Phase Vocoding.
Use any data as audio, and convert audio data to any other type.
Copy audio data exactly without generation loss.
Copy audio with only one machine (huge deal).
Transfer audio with no media to any place in the world via networking.
Have automation truly bound to audio.
Make a fully RedBook compatible CD ready for mass duplication.
Make MP3, AAC, Ogg, FLAC etc files for online distribution.
Play and edit 24+ tracks of audio on a 5-6 pound laptop.
Record 8+ tracks of nice sounding audio in the field using equipment that fits in a backpack (ask Bob Weston how great this is).


The list goes on and on. Anytime I hear someone claim there are no advantages to computer DSP, I know they have never sat down and used the tools and put any thought into considering the possibilities. Sure there are disadvantages, just like tape, but after spending the last 10 or so years using both analog and digital equipment, I can safely say I'm not doing non-digital edits ever again. I consider applications like ProTools and SuperCollider absolutely essential creative tools at this point, and I really know how to use them creatively. A lot of the FUD about digital comes from lack of familiarity, but once you understand the tools it's not so scary anymore.

[russ]

All due respect to Bob Weston, but I really wish people would stop using him as an example that digital recording is good. It's just getting old.

Personally, I'm all for digital recording. I've come to terms with it with even the little exposure I've had with it. That doesn't mean that there are still some MAJOR problems to overcome.

The first is Moore's Law. How is a studio supposed to be profitable when it has to buy really expensive new hardware every 18 months? (Keep in mind that I'm not taking Moore's Law literally, but hypothetically. See Moore's Law at Wikipedia.)

The second is the presence of a monopoly. Digidesign is an evil corporation that has in it's hands the "standard" of professional digital recording. While I don't disagree that there should be a standard, I do take issue with a sigle company having you under its thumb. How do we defend from this?

The third is the lack of an archival standard. True, I have wet dreams of building giant Storage Area Networks at the studio one day to harbor all of the masters of all the records that we record. I also have wet dreams of the money that we will charge bands and labels to pay per year for that storage. But unless I come up with my own standard of archiving, and everyone just follows my lead, how do we know that we'll be able to come back to those masters in 25 years and play them in perfect condition? Twenty-five years is 16 2/3 generations of Moore's law. Are we going to care about 192k? Are the programmers going to even remember it?

I'll stop.

russ

[skinny honkie]

Because they do not distinguish between the states of the numbers they work with, their data workflow is essentially recorded simply by being.

Something tells me it's just a little bit different when you record from the outside onto a computer. maybe that's because the signal is transferred from an electrical one to a numerical one. Feel free to disagree.

OK, thanks, I will. I'm not talking about ADC, I'm referring to the fact that a computer's FPU or integer unit/s see only a big string of numbers, without any context, and that this string of numbers results in an output to the user. That output is in effect recording.
Purely because the string of numbers was originally a sound signal does not mean the CPU looks at it any differently.

[russ]

That output is in effect recording.

Come again? A sound travelling through the air is not recording no matter how you look at it. It's just sound.

We just posted at the same time.

[cgc]

The first is Moore's Law. How is a studio supposed to be profitable when it has to buy really expensive new hardware every 18 months?

When has this not been the case for anyone in the field of audio? Go back to the early 70s when multi-tracks went from 8 to 16 to 24 tracks in a few years. The same thing goes with digital multi-track DASH, those idiot ADAT things, effects devices, console automation, the list is just about endless.

The thing to put foremost with the 'Moore's Law' equation is that it's designed to show how things will become cheaper and more convenient not faster.

Also, dedicated hardware computer systems like ProTools can be used after the host hardware systems are obsolete. I know folks who still have NuBus systems in production. I would think an HD system would have a functional life longer than the computer the cards reside in. Speaking of Digi:

The second is the presence of a monopoly. Digidesign is an evil corporation that has in it's hands the "standard" of professional digital recording. While I don't disagree that there should be a standard, I do take issue with a sigle company having you under its thumb. How do we defend from this?

Yes, Digi/Avid is not the most likable company around, but I don't think they are untouchable in the market. OMF is used to move between programs and PT obliges so they can have a big chunk of the film/video production market. So that's one way to have some compatibility and interchange with ProTools systems without actually using them. To be perfectly honest, I buy and use Digi stuff because I have a decade of skills and knowledge with it and also due to the fact that everyone I know uses it.

I am constantly evaluating other solutions, but so far nothing has really been on par for digital audio handling. Those sequencer applications always have some show stopping flaw, but I do test them anyway. It might be tough to start competing with dedicated hardware DSP solutions like PT Mix and HD, but keep in mind that Digi is stuck using very old Motorola 56k technology, which is becoming harder for them to manage. Something based on Analog Devices SHARC technology would be more powerful and cheaper, but it would take serious effort from a major manufacturer to establish it in the marketplace. I would think maybe Mackie or Tascam could do it if they gave up on the idea of their ridiculous, unwieldy console designs and put everything on PCI-X cards instead.

The third is the lack of an archival standard. True, I have wet dreams of building giant Storage Area Networks at the studio one day to harbor all of the masters of all the records that we record. I also have wet dreams of the money that we will charge bands and labels to pay per year for that storage. But unless I come up with my own standard of archiving, and everyone just follows my lead, how do we know that we'll be able to come back to those masters in 25 years and play them in perfect condition? Twenty-five years is 16 2/3 generations of Moore's law. Are we going to care about 192k? Are the programmers going to even remember it?

What sort of masters? Two track or multi-track? For the finished two track masters how about just letting digital do what it does best by generating a ton of bit exact masters? I guess that's a way to encourage CD/DVD-A/SACD sales by having more masters in circulation means the greatest chance of the work surviving. Digital overcomes the scarcity issue pretty well - just think how many DVD-R(OM) drives will be produced this week.

For your long term storage of multi-tracks, maybe consider storing the audio files as headerless 32 bit floating point data. IEEE data types probably won't go away unless some major (quantum) changes in technology occur. Really, it's not the data that's incompatible but the header portion which determines the format.

Are folks more worried about computer technology being compatible in the future or by the fact that there will never be another new 2 inch tape machine ever made? From now on there will only be fewer of those decks in the world, which seems like a pretty big concern for the future of 24 track tape.

The point about archiving is that the only constant is change, and trying to freeze something in permanently time is ultimately a fool's errand. If you want your work to last then be prepared to adapt it to whatever changes come down the pipe. It takes diligence, careful thought and hard work, and what survives will be the result of those who make the effort to ensure something survives, and not the reliance on any single technology.

[steve]

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines

Edit without destroying the media.

I do it every day. I'm not dumb enough to burn the pieces I edit out of something.

Undo multiple edits non-destructively.

I do it every day.

Redo multiple edits non-destructively.

Again... Why do you assume analog edits are "destructive"? If you cut a piece of tape out, you can always put it back.

Change pitch without changing time.
Change time without altering pitch.

These are in the realm of effects, and while neither sounds very good once it's done, you can use the same processes on a tape recording that you can on a digital one.

View multiple time scales simultaneously.

I don't know what you mean, but I can look over the console and see the 2 hours worth of master tapes, the particular reel on the machine, the track sheet has all the details of the specific song I'm working on, and I can scrub the tape to have fractions-of-a-millisecond accuracy on edits. What the hell are you talking about?

Edit audio with the same precision and effort no matter what the time scale.

Still don't know what you mean, but I can make an edit on tape that is accurate (by that I mean repeatable) to a resolution of... I don't know... 30microseconds. And every edit I make will have about that precision. What do you mean?

Convolve time domain Impulse Responses like that fancy Altiverb.
Convolve the frequency domain using FIR for phase shift free EQ.
Perform analysis and processing using FFT.
Granular synthesis.
Phase Vocoding.

All of these are effects processes, which I also have access to. I have liked FIR eq since I first bought one ten years ago, the Quantec XL, and I use it often.

Use any data as audio, and convert audio data to any other type.

This is not a recording process, but a translation process. It was first done by analog sound artists who played films (could be seismograph plates, ECG printouts, sonar ... any analog data) over optical playback systems (like used in cinema systems). This is not just possible in the analog domain, it was invented in the analog domain.

Copy audio data exactly without generation loss.

While there is some change in sound with repeated generations, there is much less need for duplicate copies in the analog domain, as the masters don't disappear into computer glitches.

Copy audio with only one machine (huge deal).

I do it every day, making bounces, compiled tracks, crossfades... If you mean making a duplicate copy, we have another machine for that, but as I said, it isn't often necessary because the masters are so robust.

Transfer audio with no media to any place in the world via networking.

Well, your recording program doesn't do that either, but if something is going to be sent across the world, I can do it physically. You get your mail, so that is evidence that the system works.

Have automation truly bound to audio.

If you mean that mix changes are built into the master, we call that a "printed" mix -- every time you play the stereo master, those changes happen exactly the same -- it's "automatic." If you decide you want to change something, you print it again, and there you go, another "automatic" mix.

Make a fully RedBook compatible CD ready for mass duplication.

You're right. This is generally done by mastering houses if the project is worth it, and byt a CDR machine if not. Again, this is a translation process, not a recording process, but I can still do it from an analog master.

Make MP3, AAC, Ogg, FLAC etc files for online distribution.

That's essentially the same process as a CD.

Play and edit 24+ tracks of audio on a 5-6 pound laptop.

So... you make records listening to those little speakers? Really? And that's an advantage? Okay.

Record 8+ tracks of nice sounding audio in the field using equipment that fits in a backpack (ask Bob Weston how great this is).

Uh, there are analog systems that are this compact, like the 8-track cassette machines Biznono and Bubbanono use to write the New Year material, but if you asked Bob Weston which he would prefer, a backpack with some crap in it, or a proper studio, I think he might not be using the backpack because it is the best option, but rather a more convenient one.

The list goes on and on. Anytime I hear someone claim there are no advantages to computer DSP, I know they have never sat down and used the tools and put any thought into considering the possibilities. Sure there are disadvantages, just like tape, but after spending the last 10 or so years using both analog and digital equipment, I can safely say I'm not doing non-digital edits ever again. I consider applications like ProTools and SuperCollider absolutely essential creative tools at this point, and I really know how to use them creatively. A lot of the FUD about digital comes from lack of familiarity, but once you understand the tools it's not so scary anymore.

Thank you for explaining to me all this stuff I don't know anything about and have "never" used. I understand that there is a generation of engineers who consider ProTools and SuperCollider absolutely essential. I appreciate that the records they make now on their laptops are obviously "better" than all the records made in the century prior. This perspective is theirs to have, but I cannot agree with it.

If I ever thought that I needed "more powerful tools," then I might be seduced by the convenience and inexpensive flash of computer systems. Unfortunately for the industry, the areas where "powerful tools" have been brought to bear are not areas where I'm having any trouble.

If I can't solve the problems I have using conventional analog studio technologies (which occasionally require outboard equipment, but are defined by the analog master tape), then I probably wouldn't be able to solve them digitally.

I don't feel like my studio is ever "holding me back," and I'd be shocked if that was genuinely true for anyone. It's a little like hypertext being "better" than paper, because now people don't have to write "mere" novels. Those new forms of web fiction are obviously "better" than books, because "you can do all these new things with the tools..."

I have been through my reasons for not using digital systems many times, but this is a nice encapsulation of why I don't see them as having any real advantages for me. They allow more manipulation faster, it's true, but I've never had records improve with more manipulation. Almost all improvement comes from the beginning stages -- the recording and playing. All the tweaking afterwards is a giant diverson, and (I am convinced) makes adjustments of trivial value.

[El Protoolio]

Didn't we already have this discussion here like a year ago? Steve's energy at dismantling the arguments for digital recording is infinite. I believe he has probably heard them all by now at least a thousand times. CGC you're just screaming at a wall.

[shagboy]

a wall of bees

[skinny honkie]

That output is in effect recording.

Come again? A sound travelling through the air is not recording no matter how you look at it. It's just sound.

We just posted at the same time.

I referred to the resultant numeric output of the calculations performed, which is recorded to RAM, not "output" in the aural sense - sorry for the confusion.

[skinny honkie]

This is an apology.
I frankly feel really shit for contributing to dragging this thread down into a (admittedly relatively civilised, and informative) shit-fling.
I feel sorry for Steve, because he need justify nothing about what he does or the way he does it. Beating up forum trolls with War and Peace posts is a waste of his time and energy, as well as being really unsatisfying because you can't engage a troll in a physical headlock and spit "FUCK OFF" in their face, to which I'm sure all admins will admit to wishing for.
I've found these forums a fascinating source of information and experience, and making them a big drag to the person who paid for them by making him rehash the same old argument for the one millionth time jeopardises their existence.
So I apologise to everyone. Seeya in the not A vs D threads. Cheers for the forum Steve.

[cgc]

Wait a second. There's not even a debate here:

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines

Note the term 'Literally', which means take these words exactly as they are written. I responded to this statement with a list of completely factually correct items. However:

All of these are effects processes, which I also have access to. I have liked FIR eq since I first bought one ten years ago, the Quantec XL, and I use it often.

The Quantec IS A COMPUTER! In fact, I think it might have the same DSP chips as a ProTools hardware system. Regardless of that, it has a hardware structure much the same as a desktop PC as well (I/O, User Interface, CPU, fixed and volatile storage). So basically the terms of debate should be defined as:

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines with the help of a bunch of computers

Now this debate becomes really, really stupid because one of the comparison groups encompasses the other entirely. It's no longer even a debate after the terms changed completely (awful debate form BTW). Maybe someone can go back, remove the term 'Literally' and delete all the posts responding to that.

I do still take exception to statements like this though:

If you don't have a tape recorder, but want to record sound, you can use a computer. In the same sense, if you don't have a shopping cart, you can use an artillery piece or a Ferrari to go through your inter-aisle maneuvers in Dominicks. I wouldn't recommend either, as they weren't made for the task, and eventually their design choices will impose themselves on the process.

Some stuff at the freakish margins will take more time on a tape machine (say, quantizing drum tracks to the nearest 16th note, or erasing all the bleed from every track), so it is only done when necessary, not as a standard practice. Because these things are easier on computers, they are done routinely, and have become cliches.

That really implies, and not so subtly, that recordings made with computers are somehow by default inferior to ones made on tape. I call bullshit on that one. The computer does not automatically limit the people using it, and not everyone immediately starts quantizing every note by default. Computer users are not mindless zombies as those statements imply, people can use them creatively.

The processes you determine to be 'at the freakish margins' might actually have some artistic merit if considered on a larger scale than the purely technical,and not dismissed out of hand. Without computer quantization there would be no Kraftwerk, thus no 'Planet Rock', no Rap, no Detroit Techno, no 'Blue Monday', no UK Acid House, no rave culture... that's a pretty huge section of popular culture, which I wouldn't want to be without.

Long live the Computer and it's precious Quantizing!!

Chris

[Bob Weston]

All due respect to Bob Weston, but I really wish people would stop using him as an example that digital recording is good. It's just getting old.

Really? Are people doing that more than just in this thread?

I've made a few hundred records over the past 15-years without using computers. I edit the analog tape all the time (2", 1", 1/2", 1/4"). I think these records sound great and most of the bands seemed pretty happy with the results too.

The things that you can't easily do with multitrack tape quickly (the minute "repairs", "fixing" the timing of drum hits, "fixing" the pitch, all the stuff you've been arguing about, etc) are it's strength when making a record on a budget: You won't waste hours and hours fixing things ("mistakes") that: a) make your band, the song, this particular recorded version of the song more memorable and b) nobody would ever notice unless you pointed it out to them as a mistake.

Just because you can "fix" all this stuff, doesn't mean that you should.

Listen to all of your classic Stones, Zeppelin, Who, etc etc. If those records were made with today's standard computer based methods they wouldn't rock half as much and you wouldn't still be listening to them. There are "mistakes" everywhere.

The supposed "perfection" that can be achived with the computers can simply suck the life and energy out of your band.

Don't be mistaken. I will ALWAYS choose analog tape recording over digital. It is simply better.

best,
Bob

P.S. Sorry about all the quotation marks. -b

[areopagite]

Listen to all of your classic Stones, Zeppelin, Who, etc etc. If those records were made with today's standard computer based methods they wouldn't rock half as much and you wouldn't still be listening to them. There are "mistakes" everywhere.

i could not agree more. from my free jazz phase a few years ago i learned an appreciation for the imperfections in musical performance. listening to coltrane you can actually hear the sweat, you can hear his fingers tapping the keys and working his musical machine. you hear the performance, the human process of making music. seems like for years the aim has been perfection and now that perfection is easily attainable, i fucking hate it. it is sterile, lame, and captures no human emotion or toil.

i want to hear the musician playing the music. the subtle mistakes captured in the process are what shows me that the music is important and is a physical burden being unleashed from the performer. digital editing perfection leads to the removal of much of what i've learned to like about music. since the computer can play time signatures and note patterns which are impossible for the human brain and limbs and since the computer can play everything perfectly, the message sent is that perfect sounding music is unimportant. since a machine can make perfect music instantly and replicate it perfectly for any length of time, perfect playing of music is unremarkable.

i don't want to hear the notes, i want to hear the band playing the notes. i don't want to hear the vocals i want to hear the singer as he sings. i don't want to hear the rigid beat, i want to hear the drummer leading the music into and out of its natural tempo shifts. these imperfections are based in the human process of creating music and playing it. and that is what i love. please don't edit it out.

i'm also totally against a studio being used to make a band sound better than they do. this is the root of all that "fancy dan" computer power being bragged about. but alas, it is another topic entirely.

[steve]

Wait a second. There's not even a debate here:

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines

Note the term 'Literally', which means take these words exactly as they are written. I responded to this statement with a list of completely factually correct items.

My point was that, as a recording/editing device, a computer isn't better than a tape machine in any way that matters to me, and to highlight that, I suggested that there isn't any recording or editing function (I should have been more explicit about that) that a computer can do that I can't also do with tape machines. I still think I'm right about that.

All of these are effects processes, which I also have access to. I have liked FIR eq since I first bought one ten years ago, the Quantec XL, and I use it often.

The Quantec IS A COMPUTER! In fact, I think it might have the same DSP chips as a ProTools hardware system. Regardless of that, it has a hardware structure much the same as a desktop PC as well (I/O, User Interface, CPU, fixed and volatile storage).

Again, my point is that a tape machine is the better recording device, and that processes (some digital for sure) that can be done to the sound on a computer can also be done to an analog recording. This isn't a kosher/treyf distinction -- it's a distinction between a good basic recording strategy and one that purports to be "better." I reiterate that anything that can be done on a computer can be done in a conventional studio with analog tape machines.

I do still take exception to statements like this though:

If you don't have a tape recorder, but want to record sound, you can use a computer. In the same sense, if you don't have a shopping cart, you can use an artillery piece or a Ferrari to go through your inter-aisle maneuvers in Dominicks. I wouldn't recommend either, as they weren't made for the task, and eventually their design choices will impose themselves on the process.

Some stuff at the freakish margins will take more time on a tape machine (say, quantizing drum tracks to the nearest 16th note, or erasing all the bleed from every track), so it is only done when necessary, not as a standard practice. Because these things are easier on computers, they are done routinely, and have become cliches.

That really implies, and not so subtly, that recordings made with computers are somehow by default inferior to ones made on tape. I call bullshit on that one. The computer does not automatically limit the people using it, and not everyone immediately starts quantizing every note by default. Computer users are not mindless zombies as those statements imply, people can use them creatively.

I don't see any mention of zombies. The difference between a tape machine and a computer will assert itself at some point in the session, that's all I meant, and I believe it to be true.

The processes you determine to be 'at the freakish margins' might actually have some artistic merit if considered on a larger scale than the purely technical,and not dismissed out of hand. Without computer quantization there would be no Kraftwerk, thus no 'Planet Rock', no Rap, no Detroit Techno, no 'Blue Monday', no UK Acid House, no rave culture... that's a pretty huge section of popular culture, which I wouldn't want to be without.

Well, you're absolutely wrong about Kraftwerk. Virtually all of their rhythms (up until the last couple of albums) were performed by them, either on drum kits (in the early days) or using synthesizer/noise triggers. They also used tape loops and analog sequencers as well, which had no quantizing. But this is immaterial. I'm awfully glad their records were recorded on tape, because I like them and I want them to survive.

And to suggest that records of any type cannot be made on tape machines is ridiculous. Some stuff (yes, at the freakish margins) is easier on computers, so that stuff gets exploited more in that paradigm, but it can be done using tape machines.

[bomberz1qr20]

I prefer to stay out of the digital vs. analog discussion, because I'm a drummer and my only valid argument would be which machines survive being hit with sticks.



As far as the original questions to this thread, I think it's really a matter of very old principals in recording. Put it down to "tape" (disc, whatever) the right way in the first place.

By "the right way" I mean be prepared in your: playing, tuning, room setup, mic selection, mic placement, engineer selection, musician selection, diet, morals, hygiene, etc.

Fixing anything in Protools is just as essentially lame as trying to fix it on tape. The unfortunate thing about the prolific use of comp recording is the laziness it seems to foster. It much to easy to take all these wonderful digital tools and use them to mask what is essentially a bad recording.

Personally I love the pressure that analog puts on the performance. I play better if I know that we can't go chop-a-tastic in a window to fix my lameness. In this regard I think it saves more overall time in the process.

Do your homework kids, the record will speak for itself.


And I agree with Steve, they are very good at what they do there. Everything is done right going to tape, and it saves a crapload of $$.

The coffee there blows ass though.

[bonati]

Oooh, a wall of bees!

[ebeam]

I think part of the problem here is that Steve presents an argument that is so convincing and difficult to refute, that everyone wants to try and refute it. From what I gather, this argument centers around 3 main points:

1) Computers don't offer any specific advantage over tape machines for the recording of music.
2) Computers are unreliable, both in the short term (losing data, crashing) and in the long term since hardware/software changes are happening so quickly and not always with backwards compatibility.
3) Digital audio has no long-term archival format/standards.

Maybe there are a couple more ancillary points I'm missing.

Anyhow, that argument makes a lot of sense to me and I pretty much agree. However, I strongly disagree with those who trash the *sound* of digital audio and think that the above argument supports them in making those claims. Usually, this is from some kid who uses a portastudio because someone told him the Beatles recorded on a 4 track . It is a ridiculous assertion, yet a pervasive one...especially on these here internets.

Not that there is anything wrong with using a 4 track. Frankly, I don't think using any recording method or media is 'wrong' if it works for you.

[bomberz1qr20]

Oooh, a wall of bees!

Muh?