Today's technology... Today's music... TODAY'S ENGINEERS & PRODUCERS

[SMC]

Another thread stirred up a post I made on another forum in October

Just think about it. Your thoughts?

It's kind of general, but you'll get the point

(It was a response to 'today's consumer gear, everyone having a 'studio', equals crap music')



We must remember that even in the early days of recording (Not really all so early, but for the sake of this portion of discussion), there were still various levels of quality available in the equipment. At the time Public Enemy's "It Takes A Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back" was recorded you could buy a CHEAP Tascam 1/2" Real to Real or an expensive Otari 2", and so on. Same went for mics, consoles, mixers, pre's, monitors and everything else. So even in the days when computers weren't controlling the market in audio production, there was still vast differences in gear. And you could still go to head shops and cop local discs that sucked I'm sure. This plays out into more support of this.......

Everybody has a 'studio' at home. I can't get over how many people are rocking an MBox, but they have 'a studio', or they have no idea what they are doing, but they are an 'engineer' or 'producer' or better yet the 'executive producer' of their friends album! HAHAHAHAHA. I agree that the rise of the computer has had a detrimental effect on the standards and quality we are likely to hold to and expect to hear in independant/underground music, or any audiophile productions for that matter. This also plays out to more which brings us back later.........

I remember recording to tape. Not that I'm all that old, I'm rather young, but yes, we did. Apple 2E's weren't gonna cut it, so tape it was. We didn't even really have the option of computers (At least through 'Digi', pretty much where it all started though [Digi, and standard wise]) until the first PowerPC's hit the market and we saw things like SoundAccelorator, AudioMedia & Samplecell Nubus cards and junk..... Actually it all started as a piece of hardware, a drum machine esentially, DigitalDrums or some crap, that was '84, before they invented their fist run at software as SoundTools in '89, which, although the name was different it was basically the foundation of ProTools which finally released in '91, Time Division Multiplexing was probably their biggest advancement and I can't remember for the life of me when it was actually implemented, as I don't think it came with the first interface cards, but the funny thing is it was bought out in '95 by Avid. I say this is funny for a few reasons: Look at how fast a DAW revolutionized the way music was made. I remember in my early adventures how some of the vets were talkin like it sounded so much better, so much cleaner, so high quality, crazy sampling rates! LOL. Another reason I think it's funny is that this software and hardware, designed by two cats whos names I don't recall (If you really care you could probably look it up), was blowing up, Revolutionizing sound, growin faster than any other technological or electrical advance in regards to music production that was seen to that time. And it was all centered around computers. And at the time it was the greatest things ever sounded (Obviously a matter of personal opinion to anyones taste, especially at the time). In some ways it was cleaner than other forms of recording, or other gear, because it was using cleaner/more advanced circuitry. And finally, I think it's funny that Avid bought them out. They wanted to share capabilities and hardware, and it was just easier to buy out 'Digi'. Avid also moved fast as they formed in '87 and went public/corporate in '93, just 2 years prior to purchasing Digidesign. How sick is that, an age of digital revolution in music and film that set the standard for both which still holds today. This of course plays into more.......

All the technological advancements are getting greater and greater. Obvious differences between the digital and analouge capture of audio are great and there are many. The biggest determining factor in the differences of the digital audio itself in my opinion are Sampling Rates, Bit Depth, the lack of 3rd harmonic distortion, clocking and jitter, and quality of AD/DA converters. With sampling rates of 192,000 samples per second and 24 or higher bit depths I'd say the capture of that part of audio itself is almost inaudible verses say 16 bit 44.1 which is redbook standard anyway. And even after capturing audio at high sample and bit rates, even properly dithering down, we still end up with the same final product. As far as the lack of harmonic distortion caused by the capture of frequencies presented by analouge signal, these can be replaced. It's an extra step and sometimes a bit tricky, but it can be reproduced accurately. Obviously none of these things will make your project any better or worse if there aren't stable, jitter 'free' clocks and quality converters. The real benefit with the higher rates takes place in the studio with transparency, manipulation ability, and overhead. That being said, then there is the question of what can you hear? What will the system in question replicate? Will it even replicate the quality of audio that is being played? Will the end user know the difference or even be able to tell? Do they care? (I do, I'm saying this for arguments sake, but it is justified and pertinent) Many end users entire audio library consists of MP3's. Obviously the quality of the recording itself is dramatically compramised. Take Metallica's new album for instance, it was overdriven, overcompressed, and arguably distorted. Rick knows what he's doing and he's a pro, a serious pro, and the album in many ways is flawed in most listeners opinions, yet that's what was released. Obviously this album was recorded on a heavy hitting HD System surrounded by high end gear top to bottom. I believe that no matter how great the technology is it all depends on the individual performing the work. Same goes for low end gear, of which even the cheapest stuff now is 'cleaner' than the most expensive tape machine from way back. A different sound, yes, but factually cleaner. Good or bad is determined by preference/opinion. Which leads on.......

All this technological advancement, and the microprecessor, advances which make these components smaller and cheaper every year, are making it possible to provide "everyone" an affordable solution that will allow them to capture audio. This is both good and bad for Digi. First of all, it's a professional company, stuff only pros could afford early on, and the quality of their equipment and software was the best you could get. Now, they set up consumer grade electronics, many of which they don't even make, they private label, and they have compramised the integrity of their name. This provides mass dollar volume on consumer level. But may also prevent some from purchasing the high end HD systems. However it also provides compatability from home to studio which makes things easier on the studios in some cases. All around both a good and a bad business decision.

All this brings us back to a gigantic convoluded close.......

Gear is affordable to everyone. Even Pro Tools. You can produce, record, and cut an entire album with gear you just bought for under $1000, computer, interface, mic, monitors, headphones, cables, software and all. If you did a good job on your MBox and knew what you were doing, and then understand the limitations of your system so you farm out mastering to a qualified pro with the proper equipment, the final mix/master can come out very very good. I hate to say it, cause it really destroys what we do, but it is a fact. The good thing for us is that most of these clowns have no idea what they are doing and their stuff sounds like crap and can't even be resurrected by a professional. Outcome is mostly dependant on the individual turning the knob.

The final result of product is limited to 16 bit 44.1KHz digital format/medium anyway, unless you're pressing vinyl (which is fabulous), in which case, what harm is done by working in digital format, as that is the ultimate result of the product. In which case, does it benefit us in regards to final quality to record in higher format? Can we even hear the difference between 24/192 vs 16/44.1?? Can the listener? Is it todays technology that is destroying todays underground/independant music or is it the engineers? Does the immediate availability of arguably competative equipment at consumer level really sway the way of professional production or does Metallica still record an album in a major studio that is distributed with what most engineers consider flaws? As a whole I think the computer is fabulous, yet, it can't do anything quality without quality turning the knobs.



Just a lil support for the old doggs. I have an old Power PC and some Nubus stuff around still. I think I might fire it up now Cut some grungy 8 bit sample kits on it or something.