CLA telling the difference between boys and men

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by shortstory

And I do believe that the science of sound is beyond what digital is capable of. In fact analog is too. As Walter Sear said- "recordings suck, I'm trying to make them better".

Digital went the wrong way- but the ease outweighs the cons- and my other analog gear helps make up for some of it.

And therein lies the bigger problem. Is gear getting better? Or is it just getting cheaper, faster and more convenient?

The good: Really good if not great gear is now in the hands of that many more people.

The bad: The pros are not stepping down and using what the novices are using.

Do you see a trend of mediocrity in the quality of recordings?

[chet.d]

Originally Posted by skybluerental

the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous.
what is this 9th grade?
seriously, “what separates the men from the boys?”
that is asinine.
we are talking about art here.
i have heard great mixes come off everything from big nice consoles to small shitty consoles, to summing boxes, to Roland VS2480’s, to ITB DAW.........

everybody has their own bag.

can’t we just leave it at that?

Amen.

Listen to a song (for example) off East River Pipes "The Gasoline age"...
FM recorded at home on his Tascam 388 and ask yourself if it doesn't artistically and emotionally measure up to what "the men" are doing.

I love a Burl converter and quality faders as much as the next obsessive engineer-producer dude but let's not forget the importance of distinguishing the "men" of art.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Unintentionally perfect.

Perhaps besides a double negative, it is a semi brilliant double entendre , or is that a null ?

[shortstory]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

And therein lies the bigger problem. Is gear getting better? Or is it just getting cheaper, faster and more convenient?

The good: Really good if not great gear is now in the hands of that many more people.

The bad: The pros are not stepping down and using what the novices are using.

Do you see a trend of mediocrity in the quality of recordings?

I certainly think that the quality of recorded music has gone down. If anyone took a vinyl album and a CD of the exact same master mixes and A/B'd them on a quality monitoring system, 99% would hear the difference.

I believe the science & physics of recording sound is far more challenging than capturing the color space in photography. Music/sound recording is more along the lines of capturing/recording live-action picture. Contrary to what someone said here earlier- film is still the desired medium because of the science & quality- not that HD doesn't work at times. David Fincher is probably a good example of a director who accepts and artistically utilizes HD video- but also requires film for certain projects; and in fact uses film every time the budget allows.

I'm happy that recording no longer requires $2M to have a studio and that everyone can enjoy it; just as I'm happy I can take photos of my children, edit them, change them, store them on my computer, without having boxes of prints.

The music industry got caught by surprise 20 years ago and tried to fight reality. I believe the result was they lost control of the art- and it has become a commodity. The biggest loss was quality-

What I do wish is that we had a higher quality format than MP3s, AC3s, etc- and I REALLY wish that when you bought this high-quality file, you also got photos & all the detailed info of who played the instruments, where it was recorded, who engineered, produced, assisted- basically the info that makes it an experience rather than just a song; and yes- I am harkening back to the days of records in a way- but using technology.

But I'll say it again- the quality of recorded music is not good- and we as professionals should do better. That is how I approach my job as a mix engineer anyway.

[jimmyboy7]

Originally Posted by shortstory

I certainly think that the quality of recorded music has gone down. If anyone took a vinyl album and a CD of the exact same master mixes and A/B'd them on a quality monitoring system, 99% would hear the difference.

I believe the science & physics of recording sound is far more challenging than capturing the color space in photography. Music/sound recording is more along the lines of capturing/recording live-action picture. Contrary to what someone said here earlier- film is still the desired medium because of the science & quality- not that HD doesn't work at times. David Fincher is probably a good example of a director who accepts and artistically utilizes HD video- but also requires film for certain projects; and in fact uses film every time the budget allows.

I'm happy that recording no longer requires $2M to have a studio and that everyone can enjoy it; just as I'm happy I can take photos of my children, edit them, change them, store them on my computer, without having boxes of prints.

The music industry got caught by surprise 20 years ago and tried to fight reality. I believe the result was they lost control of the art- and it has become a commodity. The biggest loss was quality-

What I do wish is that we had a higher quality format than MP3s, AC3s, etc- and I REALLY wish that when you bought this high-quality file, you also got photos & all the detailed info of who played the instruments, where it was recorded, who engineered, produced, assisted- basically the info that makes it an experience rather than just a song; and yes- I am harkening back to the days of records in a way- but using technology.

But I'll say it again- the quality of recorded music is not good- and we as professionals should do better. That is how I approach my job as a mix engineer anyway.

What a fabulous summary of what so many of us have seen happen. I just got telling my son (16) and one of his friends to learn how to play in time with a metronome and to listen deeper!!!

One of things I do in my consultations with clients is show them an A/B of Stevie Wonders "Livin' in the City" with "Part Time Lover". Even with MP3's People can hear what an all digital recording did to Stevie's sound quality.

I know that converters have come a long way since "Part Time Lover" but it reveals the limitations of digital and he unbelievable depth, width, and warmth of Stevie's analog recordings.

The one thing I am trying to do with my clients is get them to agree to mastering about 2-3 db lower so there are some dynamics left. Generally I shoot for an RMS of about -6db and limit as transparently as possible. The latest project I did was accepted by the label with no requests for higher levels. I think if we can just try to do this it could be a step in the right direction.

[Slikjmuzik]

Originally Posted by shortstory

I certainly think that the quality of recorded music has gone down. If anyone took a vinyl album and a CD of the exact same master mixes and A/B'd them on a quality monitoring system, 99% would hear the difference.

But I'll say it again- the quality of recorded music is not good- and we as professionals should do better. That is how I approach my job as a mix engineer anyway.

Hmm, a lot of people say that. I happen to disagree. The 70's sound had a sound. To me the bandwidth and top end were no where near what things are like now. To many, now is bad, but idk...

Take a listen to Daughtry's 'Call Your Name' or Skillet's 'Awake and Alive'. To me, this is what full, powerful in your face rock should sound like. Nothing gets better than that to my ears on any stereo system, not just hi-fi or high-end in order to 'hear the details'. These mixes translate powerfully on ipod earbuds, home stereo, car stereo or in my studio. I can't really say that about many mixes pre 90's, if any. Oh, also, surprise surprise, both were mixed by CLA, thus exactly why he's on top. Some of his other work(I didn't care for Black Parade much) was questionable, but you can tell that was in the tracking. The Daughtry, Green Day, All-American Rejects and Skillet stuff is pinnacle rock mixing to me as it translates to EVERYTHING!!

[Retinal]

His method, his workflow

What works for someone doesn't necessary work for everybody..

With that said, SSL did change music, that's a fact and they kick ass,
that's another fact.
But I'd take a 1608 anyday over an SSL

PS: the stop and play thing was kinda ridiculous..

[u b k]

Originally Posted by chet.d

...let's not forget the importance of distinguishing the "men" of art.

That a calendar?


Gregory Scott - ubk

[Nowak]

*Unsubscribe*

[ssprod19]

Originally Posted by Nowak

I actually agree with CLA about sitting at a console and feeling empowered, like sitting at a grand piano rather than a small upright, it can inspire.

Stef

yeah most people bashing probably never sat at an SSL. I've never used one, so I found the video interesting. Am I going to switch no an SSL because CLA says it's better? of course not... I can't afford it, nor do I have the space for it in my bedroom

[Bob Amirian]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

And therein lies the bigger problem. Is gear getting better? Or is it just getting cheaper, faster and more convenient?

The good: Really good if not great gear is now in the hands of that many more people.

The bad: The pros are not stepping down and using what the novices are using.

Do you see a trend of mediocrity in the quality of recordings?

It's true. And there's yet more to it.
When I bought ATC monitors to my studio I started to clearly hear the reverb tails and bad edits cracks in many recordings, I also could finally hear the music the way it was really mixed.
So I started to listen to many records from my colection and FWIW discovered that to approx.1980 records sounded GREAT (full, fat, detailed and glued), then they made a major step back (nasty reverb plates, thinner overall sound, more "mechanical", very detailed but not really glued), from approx. 2000 they started to sound very contoured, like a lot of lows and highs but the meaty mids were seldom there, and currently the music sounds like it lost the depth and fatness almost to the extent of a national disaster. It's just got more lows, but not third dimension or roundness it used to have.
I dare to call it:
"Lows are God. Highs are angels. Mids are atheists."
So wrong.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Bob Amirian

It's true. And there's yet more to it.
When I bought ATC monitors to my studio I started to clearly hear the reverb tails and bad edits cracks in many recordings, I also could finally hear the music the way it was really mixed.
So I started to listen to many records from my colection and FWIW discovered that to approx.1980 records sounded GREAT (full, fat, detailed and glued), then they made a major step back (nasty reverb plates, thinner overall sound, more "mechanical", very detailed but not really glued), from approx. 2000 they started to sound very contoured, like a lot of lows and highs but the meaty mids were seldom there, and currently the music sounds like it lost the depth and fatness almost to the extent of a national disaster. It's just got more lows, but not third dimension or roundness it used to have.
I dare to call it:
"Lows are God. Highs are angels. Mids are atheists."
So wrong.

Great post.

[shortstory]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

And therein lies the bigger problem. Is gear getting better? Or is it just getting cheaper, faster and more convenient?

The good: Really good if not great gear is now in the hands of that many more people.

The bad: The pros are not stepping down and using what the novices are using.

Do you see a trend of mediocrity in the quality of recordings?

By the way- one positive aspect of digital is that analog gear has improved. All these guys that were techs/engineers that are now making analog gear- companies like wunder, retro, aurora, and even Mr. Neve himself- are making incredible gear that has improved the quality. I try to judge music by the music itself- but as a mix engineer (trained) I am fascinated by the physics of capturing or creating sound quality- and these guys have progressed this.

Digital is still limited. 24 bit helped- but the frequency range & headroom is still limited. Even though I use protools, there are ways to create more musical recordings and I personally feel electronic gear that introduces harmonics & physical components to the sound beyond those limitations of digital is what does it.

I basically think 'hybrid' is the future (with the emphasis on analog)- not digital, and certainly not emulations (plug-ins); but that is only my subjective preference & opinion.

[dualflip]

Originally Posted by shortstory

By the way- one positive aspect of digital is that analog gear has improved. All these guys that were techs/engineers that are now making analog gear- companies like wunder, retro, aurora, and even Mr. Neve himself- are making incredible gear that has improved the quality. I try to judge music by the music itself- but as a mix engineer (trained) I am fascinated by the physics of capturing or creating sound quality- and these guys have progressed this.

Digital is still limited. 24 bit helped- but the frequency range & headroom is still limited. Even though I use protools, there are ways to create more musical recordings and I personally feel electronic gear that introduces harmonics & physical components to the sound beyond those limitations of digital is what does it.

I basically think 'hybrid' is the future (with the emphasis on analog)- not digital, and certainly not emulations (plug-ins); but that is only my subjective preference & opinion.

true, and if i may add, when most plug-in companies decide its time to actually make good plug-ins, rather than bad and unfaithful copies of old analog equipment, it may be when digital "stops sucking"

[chet.d]

Originally Posted by u b k

That a calendar?


Gregory Scott - ubk

Ouch! Scarey thought.
Guess "men" of art does imply an unattractive picture.

Now a "women" of art calander... that could get interesting.
I vote for Hope Sandoval for Ms. October

[shortstory]

Originally Posted by dualflip

true, and if i may add, when most plug-in companies decide its time to actually make good plug-ins, rather than bad and unfaithful copies of old analog equipment, it may be when digital "stops sucking"

here's what I think-

The signal chain is: a transducer (mic diaphragm) that reacts to the physical vibrations of sine waves; which then creates a VOLTAGE- and that is the key or fundamental ingredient behind analog.

Hardware comps, limiters, EQs, etc then effect that voltage- creating inherent qualities based on the circuits & components and the relationships of those components. 'Emulations' are that- emulations.

I use protools as a tape machine- but I cannot let go of the principles of voltage and what electronics bring to the picture.

And I am probably the only person who prints tone at the start of every one of my sessions- 1k @ 0db analog = -18db digital - so that any other mix engineer can set up a session.

To any younger engineers out there- if you're wondering how to get the kind of sounds that a Brauer or Lord-Alge or any other mix engineer gets- it's all rooted in gain structure and establishing unity gain across every aspect of your mix- or voltage

[dualflip]

Originally Posted by shortstory

here's what I think-

The signal chain is: a transducer (mic diaphragm) that reacts to the physical vibrations of sine waves; which then creates a VOLTAGE- and that is the key or fundamental ingredient behind analog.

Hardware comps, limiters, EQs, etc then effect that voltage- creating inherent qualities based on the circuits & components and the relationships of those components. 'Emulations' are that- emulations.

I use protools as a tape machine- but I cannot let go of the principles of voltage and what electronics bring to the picture.

And I am probably the only person who prints tone at the start of every one of my sessions- 1k @ 0db analog = -18db digital - so that any other mix engineer can set up a session.

To any younger engineers out there- if you're wondering how to get the kind of sounds that a Brauer or Lord-Alge or any other mix engineer gets- it's all rooted in gain structure and establishing unity gain across every aspect of your mix- or voltage

Well, i get what you mean, however digital is voltage too!, a combination of 0V and 5V pulses, but they are not analog to the signal being recorded.

i however, do the same thing you do at the start of the session, i think its a very healthy and forgotten practice, back in the tape days it was almost mandatory, now its not, but i still do it just for my on sanity.

i like using the console's oscillator or ill use the protools oscilator, send it to the console and record it back, just to make sure everything is were its supposed to be.

[Shaman]

Originally Posted by Bob Amirian

It's true. And there's yet more to it.
When I bought ATC monitors to my studio I started to clearly hear the reverb tails and bad edits cracks in many recordings, I also could finally hear the music the way it was really mixed.
So I started to listen to many records from my colection and FWIW discovered that to approx.1980 records sounded GREAT (full, fat, detailed and glued), then they made a major step back"[/SIZE]

Curious what type of music you are refering to...
Have atcs here too but I feel just the opposite way -
I think really well produced accoustic music ( not speaking
of mainstream rock, pop, dance ) - say the latest orchestral
sting and peter gabriel albums never sounded better than today...

[joe_04_04]

Only one thing infuriated me more than the boring history lesson....8:16...I would've smashed that pop can down that kids throat...NO DRINKS IN THE CONTROL ROOM!!! Go outside and drink lol

[mattg082]

So in other words for things to be on point and everything to be perfect, I need a SSl E4000. Huh, I mean it's stuff we already know and sounds like a advert of sort. But, I wish I had a SSL E4000 and I bet we all do. It's one of my fav plugs and I've almost invested into the one channel strip. But still, all he is saying, is if you have been at it awhile, have the knowledge and the gear you can be right in the pocket. Well, no shit sherlock. CLA does come off as a bit slimy, but I think it's just his pretentious, righteous attitude over the years and that he has the drive to be the man with some egocentrism he's developed over the years. I mean you would too and want to be the best. I've met some big rockstars in my life and they all seem to be very competitive and want to be above everyone else. Someone in his shoes, I would doubt be any less and just as obsessed and stuck in his ways.