History: DAWs and plug-ins on top of digital music production

[niklas_sn7]

The link first: The evolution of digital music production - DAW plug-ins on top

Lately I wrote my master thesis about "The evolution of digital music production - DAW plug-ins on top". Because I had collected so much material I thought of presenting it online, which I did.
So all the things I found out about DAWs and plug-ins are backed up with quotations from books, magazines and websites. The quotations itself are commented as well plus I added some more links and stuff.

The main focus of my thesis is to analyze what makes digital music production so special and ahead of legacy approaches (if at least). I took the example of DAW plug-ins to illustrate that analysis. And I explored the topic based on a timeline including 50 years of the technological evolution of digital production tools from the frist computers making sounds up to the DAW plug-ins of today.

I think it is not necessary to read the whole text in a row, it makes more sense to go from part to part or to just look up some references one finds useful. Or do further research with the timeline...
I personally recommend the Appendix, where I put some tables with the most common DAWs listed, categorized by their driver/OS/plug-in compatibility. So people can see what type of hardware/OS/DAW combination they could choose from.

Hope to read your comments on that.

[niklas_sn7]

Just take a look.

[astronmr20]

What school/program/degree is your thesis for?

[kafka]

Are you sure this is a Master's thesis? This thing is nothing but rambling generalities, and shows no mastery of any details whatsoever. That has to be the worst conclusion I've ever read. You make absolutely no points at all. It reads like you're just trying to fill up space with words.

[SteveFireland]

I'm sure you put a lot into it, but it does feel little like "Stuff I Looked Up On Wikipedia" or something...

Steve.

[niklas_sn7]

It was written for a german university as part of the "Diplom" procedure. The "Diplom" was a typical german degree, somewhat like a 'master'.

Speaking of generalities - I admit that I had a problem to find the right amount of scientific depth versus a more general overview readable online. On the other hand - all the hypotheses I put in there may sound trivial in conclusion but to get there I gathered all the material and analyzed it carefully. That's science sometimes, conclusions sound trivial, but real arguments are hard to find. Kafka, what do you do actually? Studying something?

I consulted Wikipedia a few times (see References/Websites). Anyway, most of the material I used was printed. Which doesn't mean a thing in the end, of course. Only that it's now online as well. Maybe for another Wikipedia article?

[kafka]

Originally Posted by niklas_sn7

Speaking of generalities - I admit that I had a problem to find the right amount of scientific depth versus a more general overview readable online. On the other hand - all the hypotheses I put in there may sound trivial in conclusion but to get there I gathered all the material and analyzed it carefully. That's science sometimes, conclusions sound trivial, but real arguments are hard to find. Kafka, what do you do actually? Studying something?

I'm an EE, although I once did a master's thesis in materials science. I was working for a doctoral candidate and our advisor, and they needed some very specific research to support his doctoral dissertation. It was a lot of sweat, and nobody outside of the field would have understood a word of it. But it was real science because it was specific, and it was eventually given as a presentation at a scholarly conference. It met the standard of publishability, which is generally what a master's thesis has to be.

What I don't get from your conclusions is how the presentation before it necessarily lead to it, nor do I really get what the significance is of your conclusions. "Music Production Changed" and "Let's Participate" are not conclusions. I would rework them to something more specific, that can easily come from the research you've done. Exactly how you do this would depend on the program. Is it a scientific program, or is it in the social sciences (i.e. are you doing a labor study)? Is this being done through the music department?

If I were going to write a thesis on plugins, I would have first done some research into how they are written. What algorithms actually appear in them? Exactly how do programmers try to model analog equipment with them? And why do they bother? What things are they successful at? Where do they fall short? What are the limitations they face? Is it CPU? RAM? Disk transfer speed? Will DSPs always be inherently faster? What algorithms do DSPs usually accomplish? What algorithms can be done efficiently given current limitations, and what can be done of technology changes?

If you're looking at how the practice has changed, you would need some surveys or interviews with practitioners. Also, try to quantify the differences. What time or budget changes have occurred due to or prompted these changes? Are practitioners using more processing, or "effects"? Or are they now trying to get cleaner recordings than they could? Are are they spending a lot of time trying to recreate old sounds? How did the role of the amateur change due to changes in technology? Are amateurs creating technology now? What did they create in the past?

Is it a music program? You didn't seem to do any research or make any conclusions on how musical arrangements changed due to changes in technology. But, such a subject would be interesting. How does not having to pay for a musician affect what sounds are incorporated into the arrangement? How are effects used to occupy even more space or to highlight a performance? Or what about incorporation of additional sounds that are not supposed to be noticed? Was any of this foreshadowed in an earlier musical era? What is ensemble playing, and what does it now mean? How about parts that are physically impossible to play? How about the concept of repetition and looping? How has repetition been explored in "serious" music before (i.e. the influence of Indian music on composers such as Reich and Glass), and why is it so significant in popular music now?

And most importantly for any thesis - exactly what further research is needed on the subject (so your advisor can get more funding), and why was it impossible to include in this thesis? You mention improvement of the timeline, but honestly, why wouldn't the timeline in this master's thesis be complete? If there's a good reason, explain why. You have to show that you sweated.

[Ciaccona]

I've just started doing research for my "Diplomarbeit" which will be located in the audio field as well.

Without reading the whole of your work, a main point for critics is your choice of theme/topic. it's far too general. I can't believe your Professor agreed to it.
A theme for a "Diplomarbeit" or Master thesis must be very specific and focused on a pretty small aspect of a bigger topic. This specific "subtheme" must be deeply analyzed by collecting the best and reknowned sources and drawing logical conclusions out of them. your topic is far too general so that you'll only be able to scratch the surface in 70 pages.

in your defense to some other posts, it actually is the main part of such a work to put together sources. the conclusion is the minor part.
Opposed to a "dissertation" where the main object is to develop own thoughts that go further, the sense of a "master thesis" or "Diplomarbeit" over here, is to proove to be able to work with scientific sources.

[AMIEL]

Waves have a lot to do with pioneering the Plug in concept for Audio.

[niklas_sn7]

Now you're talking, kafka. First post was more on the flaming side...

I'd like to answer in detail to your post, so I start with the department I'm comming from, which is 'communication/media science' mostly based on sociology. That could partially explain my essayistic approach, rather than beeing a solely technical one. For my thesis I finally decided to stick with the history of technology, focussing on digital music production. So besides all the aspects you mentioned, which are related to music production of that kind, history takes a more general point of view. Therefor I would not be specific in any of the fields you listed up.

But that doesn't mean it's not there. I you take a look on the refernces you should see that I took some interest in computer science, especially programming plug-ins (for instance Arfib at http://member.sn7.de/niklas/mt/b04.html). I gathered some information on the DSP vs. Native aspect as well. And although I'm no programmer or specialist in electronics I tried to understand. There's so much about it but I had nothing to add to it, just summarizing the way it went (http://member.sn7.de/niklas/mt/05_03.html#1).

At first I planned to do some interviews, which would be absolutely great. But belive it or not, I didn't have had the time to do so. My professor criticized that as well, sorry, too much stuff to examine at all. Nevertheless did I study some interviews on the topic (http://member.sn7.de/niklas/mt/p.html). Actually that would be a specific task for further research: Gather empirical supplements. As for the question: Are amateurs creating technology now? - Very interesting indeed, I would say they do (http://member.sn7.de/niklas/mt/05_03.html#6). That leads to your next break (pre last)...

As for the impact of advanced technology on composition and media reception I wonder if you read a book from Peter Bickel (http://member.sn7.de/niklas/mt/b07.html). Unfortunately it's in German. It's all in there. Are you studying these things in private or how comes you're bothered with those questions? That's the kind of response I was hoping for! There's so much to say about it (again - too much for my thesis). On the concepts of 'minimalism' I think Dogde/Jerse (http://member.sn7.de/niklas/mt/b11.html) would be a good a read. Nevertheless I left composition out due to my reasons (http://member.sn7.de/niklas/mt/05_02.html).

For the last break: The reason the timeline could be further improved is that the audio industry is somehow oblivious. They tend to hide informations on their technological forthcomming for economical reasons. And then they forget where they came from and in the end they did it all by themselves. I planned to go and ask but I didn't get there as mentioned above.

Thank you for taking your time.

To Ciaccona: I can see what you're up to and in general you're right. I really thought I'd be focussed, maybe I should have written more. But I did not want to go with some specific research. I wanted a short read for people like me, joining music production without having a clue, and there you are: What tools you go for and why? And where do they come from etc.

But I totally disagree with the usual approach of writing a diploma thesis (in Germany): It should not only proove your ability to work with scientific sources! It's the last writing of all that studying time, so it should be the main object to develop own thoughts that go further. That's what I expected from myself. If people think I failed it doesn't matter anymore. Too late.


I'd like to make clear that I don't want to impress nobody. I did not wanted to show what I can achieve. If somebody finds something usefull in it - go for it. If not, so be it.

[niklas_sn7]

Some minor updates in the list of DAWs using native plug-ins at http://member.sn7.de/niklas/mt/a3.html...

[tribeofenki]

Did a quick visit, the timeline is interesting The evolution of digital music production - DAW plug-ins on top

[niklas_sn7]

Speaking of the timeline - I updated some entries there. Anderton from Harmony Central mentioned a Publison effect device using digital sampling techniques even before the Fairlight CMI did. On KVR someone recommended a look on Opcode's StudioVision for integrating Audio and MIDI before Steinberg's Cubase Audio.

[oudplayer]

Music production is changing.

Music production changed

Where did music production change? Did it change in the same ways in all locations? What is missing, for me, is any specificity regarding music or change. I mean, any example of music and/or production in a particular studio, with a particular engineer, with a particular recording, for a particular label, in a particular genre, actually changing. So, you provide no evidence for your conclusion; it's just a "proof by assertion."

I think you've made a good start towards a historical study of technological innovations - do some interviews, do some long-term intensive studio-sited observations, do a lot more reading of sources in Media Studies and the Social History of Technology...

[Alex Specht]

Originally Posted by kafka

You didn't seem to do any research or make any conclusions on how musical arrangements changed due to changes in technology. But, such a subject would be interesting. .

Slightly understated: AUTO TUNE, DRUM MACHINES, CUT AND PASTE

Great Thred thumbsup

[niklas_sn7]

I think I covered some of the actual changes of musicians using new technology in the "The chronology - interpreting history" sub-section. Some details were left out mainly because I deduced more general aspects from widespread single sources featuring that kind of information (which company did what when for whatever reason etc.). I recommend to look at the references for these - if you don't come along with my text, you might do better with the original stuff.

For the influence of such "discoveries" mentioned by Alex Specht I recommend Bickel and Dodge & Jerse among others.

[MattiMattMatt]

Originally Posted by niklas_sn7

Now you're talking, kafka. First post was more on the flaming side...

You're promoting your work on the internet, asking people to spend time looking at it, so I think you have to accept criticism without dismissing it as flaming. I looked at it and agree with his original assessment. You've accumulated a bunch of search results, but I don't see any attempt to organize or make sense of them. It seems like an arbitrary rambling list of things you found in search.

Originally Posted by kafka

Are you sure this is a Master's thesis? This thing is nothing but rambling generalities, and shows no mastery of any details whatsoever. That has to be the worst conclusion I've ever read. You make absolutely no points at all. It reads like you're just trying to fill up space with words.

[niklas_sn7]

I found kafka's post to be a little on the flaming side as he only focussed on criticism, no harm done. And I explained my intention to put the stuff online as followed:

Originally Posted by niklas_sn7

I'd like to make clear that I don't want to impress nobody. I did not wanted to show what I can achieve. If somebody finds something usefull in it - go for it. If not, so be it.

[MattiMattMatt]

Originally Posted by niklas_sn7

I found kafka's post to be a little on the flaming side as he only focussed on criticism

You are promoting your work and asking for feedback. You therefore cannot control the response. His response reflected my thoughts as well, and I didn't find it flaming in any way. Your reaction reminds me of "aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?"

It's as if someone did a search for "food" on the internet, never actually ate or prepared food, sloppily assembled their results, and popped up in chef forums promoting their work and asking for feedback, as long as it's not critical.

[niklas_sn7]

Okay, I get it.

[MattiMattMatt]

Originally Posted by niklas_sn7

Okay, I get it.

I don't mean to sound overly harsh and appreciate the fact that you care about this topic and have put a lot of effort into it, criticism aside.

You should complement your academic interest in the subject by getting a DAW, fill it up with some of the tools you discuss, and taking it out for a spin. Make and record music! Only after you use this stuff do you get a real flesh and blood sense about what it's really about. And if you have any questions about what to use or how to use it, this is a great site. Good luck!

[niklas_sn7]

Weird, some thoughts on that crossed my mind lately: That's maybe part of my problem - I started making music itb in the first place hoping to spread some usefull information about it later on. I obviously didn't even reach the point of sophistical science but then it happend anyway - I ended up being the (mysteriously fascinated) academic without practical background. I always criticised these (theoretical) academical approaches myself and now I'm one of them? I really hope that I'm a better producer than I am a scientist.