The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Why color sound on the way in?
Old 15th October 2013
  #31
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by twentyhertz View Post
Dude seriously. Have you ever watched a real (experienced engineer/paying customers) session at working studio? Where did you read/dream up this gibberish?
This comment puts you in a difficult position, I wouldn't go there...
Old 15th October 2013
  #32
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkbross View Post
This is admittedly a philosophical discussion... but why would anyone want to track through any outboard gear that significantly colors the sound on the way in when you can throw on a plugin or go through outboard afterwards and have more options? Even a $2k mic pre could impart character that you wish you didn't have later on.
Great topic.

Many classical purists go for absolute transparency. But that does not really exist. That is just a goal. Many old soviet orchestral recordings are some of my favorites. The sound is pretty colored - with tube gear, I suppose.

Recordings are representations of reality - and can come close. But they sound better with 'hyper-reality' sound. For example, Millenia Media and DPA 130V mic make a great sound --- a 'hyper-reality' sound - and yes! it is colored. That is what I like about it.

Other times I will print with a STA Level for an opera - it just sounds better. Set and forget. I like it that way, then I am not so fussy later on with plug ins later.
Old 15th October 2013
  #33
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothVibe View Post
You can notice that the main process step is in the beginning of each iterative process flow, the "post-" is in the middle and the "pre-" is at the end of each iterative process flow,...Both the "post-" and the "pre-" process steps are mainly readiness validation steps, but they are carried out with different goals in mind by different roles within the same process flow....it needs to be ready both on the current process flow level (the recording engineer must approve the recording is ready) and ready going into the next process flow ... then the mix engineer does not approve mixing readiness on that recording and mixing never starts. You should not resume to mixing when it is not ready for mixing, don't you agree? When BOTH the "post-" and the "pre-" process steps validate OK/Ready, then the process flow as a whole is successful, you will never have to go back to that process flow after that because it succeeded, you are ready to resume to the next process flow ... the process model ensures end-to-end quality and efficiency.

this is not how the pros do it

First of all, you left out PRE "post mixing" and POST "pre-mixing"! Without these critical steps, the mixing engineer is left with a defunct process model that is only 35% emotion and 65% energy instead of the targeted 37.5% vs 62.5%.

Secondly, the process flow needs to be trammed in the permise of the deriliator or other mid-side device BEFORE the validation of OK/Ready, otherwise contority and arundment are not guaranteed.

Third, by splitting the automation work "as a whole in half, doing it in the beginning and at the end", tracks moving at velocity can be significance-based.

I am afraid your concepts are simply not advanced enough to achieve professional results. They are over-simplified and dumbed-down versions of the truly complex workflows that 'real' engineers use. You really need more observational integrity to reverse-engineer the real techniques so you can catch up to those whose processes are, as we all know, Top Secret.
Old 15th October 2013
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Swurveman's Avatar
Like a lot of threads that have a right way/wrong way mindset, I'd say that a lot depends upon how experienced the band is in understanding their sound and what they want.
Old 15th October 2013
  #35
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
this is not how the pros do it

First of all, you left out PRE "post mixing" and POST "pre-mixing"! Without these critical steps, the mixing engineer is left with a defunct process model that is only 35% emotion and 65% energy instead of the targeted 37.5% vs 62.5%.

Secondly, the process flow needs to be trammed in the permise of the deriliator or other mid-side device BEFORE the validation of OK/Ready, otherwise contority and arundment are not guaranteed.

Third, by splitting the automation work "as a whole in half, doing it in the beginning and at the end", tracks moving at velocity can be significance-based.

I am afraid your concepts are simply not advanced enough to achieve professional results. They are over-simplified and dumbed-down versions of the truly complex workflows that 'real' engineers use. You really need more observational integrity to reverse-engineer the real techniques so you can catch up to those whose processes are, as we all know, Top Secret.
You got stuck in your own thinking, please leave me outside of that equation...
Old 15th October 2013
  #36
KEL
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva View Post
"Getting it right at the source" used to be a fundamental of recording. "Throwing on a bunch of plug-ins" might be the new way, so if you prefer that, go for it.
But time (and hit) tested fundamentals become standards for a reason.
exactly. It's sort of a lost art in audio, video and photography these days. The "I can fix it in post" mentality seems to dominate in the younger generation.

I understand having choices after the tracking. There has been a shift from capturing, sweetening then mixing what the creation is, to actually creating it ITB. I can understand both sides. What annoys me is when people don't take the times to: attend to, fix, adjust, position, problem solve, tune, perform, groove, sing, simplify, arrange, etc. Without sounding like the old guy "hey you kids, get off my lawn" complainer it's frustrating to try to convince a recordist to listen and solve/adjust. I see it here at my other job in /video production too. I'll fix it in post. You can't light an interview set in post.
Old 15th October 2013
  #37
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsman View Post
most people do not like to alter anything on the way in because you cannot fix or remove it later, which would mean you did not know what you were doing in the first place...
This is good, I like this. You're approaching where I'm coming from, it's pretty common sense isn't it...
Old 15th October 2013
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by twentyhertz View Post
Dude seriously. Have you ever watched a real (experienced engineer/paying customers) session at working studio? Where did you read/dream up this gibberish?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothVibe View Post
This comment puts you in a difficult position, I wouldn't go there...
Actually, his comment is pretty much on the money. You're waaaaaaay over-thinking things and the result is pretty much gibberish. The only thing it's likely to do for you is to give you a bad case of paralysis by analysis.

Your original post mentioning pre-mix this and post-mix that reminded me very much of a thing called the Waterfall Model. This was one of the early attempts to come up with a model for software development and it was a regular staple on the undergraduate computer science/software engineering curriculum back in the late 70's and into the 80's. It was essentially a linear, gated sort of model that progressed smoothly from requirements through specification to design, coding, testing and deployment. Each step was carried out sequentially, with defined entry and exit criteria to proceed.

The only real problem with that model was that, by and large, it was a load of old cobblers and pretty much no real-world software development ever happened like that. It wasn't long before it was superseded by a plethora of other development models and methodologies, each of which may well have had its own problems and issues, but most of which were at least better and more realistic than the Waterfall model.

And, so far, your recording/mixing/mastering ideas just strike me as another Waterfall model in a different context. Overly prescriptive, overly simplistic (in a way), just as inaccurate and bearing no relationship to the way in which the process is actually carried out in the real world. As an intellectual exercise it might be interesting to think about, but it's unlikely to be any help in improving your tracking, mixing or mastering abilities.

Anyway...to return to the original question from the OP. Why colour on the way in? Well, why not? (I'm sure that someone has already basically said that and others have already said pretty much everything else that I might have thought of adding, so I'll leave it at that.)
Old 15th October 2013
  #39
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
Actually, his comment is pretty much on the money. You're waaaaaaay over-thinking things and the result is pretty much gibberish. The only thing it's likely to do for you is to give you a bad case of paralysis by analysis.

Your original post mentioning pre-mix this and post-mix that reminded me very much of a thing called the Waterfall Model. This was one of the early attempts to come up with a model for software development and it was a regular staple on the undergraduate computer science/software engineering curriculum back in the late 70's and into the 80's. It was essentially a linear, gated sort of model that progressed smoothly from requirements through specification to design, coding, testing and deployment. Each step was carried out sequentially, with defined entry and exit criteria to proceed.

The only real problem with that model was that, by and large, it was a load of old cobblers and pretty much no real-world software development ever happened like that. It wasn't long before it was superseded by a plethora of other development models and methodologies, each of which may well have had its own problems and issues, but most of which were at least better and more realistic than the Waterfall model.

And, so far, your recording/mixing/mastering ideas just strike me as another Waterfall model in a different context. Overly prescriptive, overly simplistic (in a way), just as inaccurate and bearing no relationship to the way in which the process is actually carried out in the real world. As an intellectual exercise it might be interesting to think about, but it's unlikely to be any help in improving your tracking, mixing or mastering abilities.

Anyway...to return to the original question from the OP. Why colour on the way in? Well, why not? (I'm sure that someone has already basically said that and others have already said pretty much everything else that I might have thought of adding, so I'll leave it at that.)
Basically no. At best it would be a combination of the Waterfall and Spiral process models in software development, but I'm not here to teach software development. Sorry, I need to say this like Bill Gates used to be saying, think! (meaning, you can comment, but please don't judge)
Old 15th October 2013
  #40
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothVibe View Post
Basically no. At best it would be a combination of the Waterfall and Spiral process models in software development, but I'm not here to teach software development.
Ah, now that's a place you don't want to go anyway. I quit teaching software engineering back in 1993/94.

(And the Spiral model was just a largely failed attempt to try to fix the badly broken Waterfall model in the first place. Neither of them worked and neither of them are likely to bear any remote relationship to the processes involved in recording, mixing and mastering audio. And your ideas about that process certainly look to be just as badly broken. Give up on them and get on with actually doing it and learning about it, rather than overthinking it!)
Old 15th October 2013
  #41
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
Ah, now that's a place you don't want to go anyway. I quit teaching software engineering back in 1993/94.
Heh, just don't go there...
Old 15th October 2013
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothVibe View Post
Heh, just don't go there...
Been there, done it, designed the T-shirt, sold a lot of them, went on to do other things loooong ago.
Old 15th October 2013
  #43
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
Been there, done it, designed the T-shirt, sold a lot of them, went on to do other things loooong ago.
Fair enough
Old 15th October 2013
  #44
Gear Addict
 
kirkbross's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
this is not how the pros do it

First of all, you left out PRE "post mixing" and POST "pre-mixing"! Without these critical steps, the mixing engineer is left with a defunct process model that is only 35% emotion and 65% energy instead of the targeted 37.5% vs 62.5%.

Secondly, the process flow needs to be trammed in the permise of the deriliator or other mid-side device BEFORE the validation of OK/Ready, otherwise contority and arundment are not guaranteed.

Third, by splitting the automation work "as a whole in half, doing it in the beginning and at the end", tracks moving at velocity can be significance-based.

I am afraid your concepts are simply not advanced enough to achieve professional results. They are over-simplified and dumbed-down versions of the truly complex workflows that 'real' engineers use. You really need more observational integrity to reverse-engineer the real techniques so you can catch up to those whose processes are, as we all know, Top Secret.
OP here... I appreciate and respect SmoothVibe's commitment to process and workflow, and I appreciate and respect joeq's commitment to advanced absurdity! Both take time, energy, forethought and afterthought... and foreafterpostprethought

I think the lesson is to commit to what you feel comfortable committing to and leave for later what you are unsure about... and if you do not have any gear to experiment with, then do yourself a favor and spend a little time messing around with mic placement.


...the worst thing that can happen is the earth explodes and everyone dies.
Old 15th October 2013
  #45
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
Ah, now that's a place you don't want to go anyway. I quit teaching software engineering back in 1993/94.

(And the Spiral model was just a largely failed attempt to try to fix the badly broken Waterfall model in the first place. Neither of them worked and neither of them are likely to bear any remote relationship to the processes involved in recording, mixing and mastering audio. And your ideas about that process certainly look to be just as badly broken. Give up on them and get on with actually doing it and learning about it, rather than overthinking it!)
Hole digging now, ego defending. I was contributing whole heartedly to OP's question by presenting some really important points right in the eye of OP's question, please let those arguments be fairly met, derailing the discussion into software development and personal judgment is out of topic, sorry but you know my points are valid, I'm fair with you.
Old 15th October 2013
  #46
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkbross View Post
I think the lesson is to commit to what you feel comfortable committing to and leave for later what you are unsure about... and if you do not have any gear to experiment with, then do yourself a favor and spend a little time messing around with mic placement.
Let's say there is only one recording engineer and one mixing engineer, and that's you, then it's a no-brainer, do it exactly the way you mention, whatever you feel provide you all the need-to-have mixing conditions from recording is what you need to be aiming for...
Old 15th October 2013
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothVibe View Post
Hole digging now, ego defending. I was contributing whole heartedly to OP's question by presenting some really important points right in the eye of OP's question, please let those arguments be fairly met, derailing the discussion into software development and personal judgment is out of topic, sorry but you know my points are valid, I'm fair with you.
Not at all, but I really do think you're over-analyzing it and that the ideas you presented just don't represent the way in which the process actually works and is carried out in the vast majority of cases. What about engineers who start building rough mixes while still tracking? It's not uncommon. What about the point during the mix when you decide that the best way is really going to be to re-track something (perhaps everything)? What about the countless other working methods/approaches that I'm sure folks could come up with. All of which are likely to be relevant in the real world and all of which will work well and produce excellent results in the hands of the engineer who chooses to use them.

For the majority of folks, I suspect that the whole process is far more organic and iterative than your earlier post seems to imply. As I said earlier, coming up with this kind of "model" is possibly interesting as an intellectual exercise, but ultimately not likely to be useful or to provide any real assistance in learning how to achieve the best possible results. Of course, I may be misunderstanding what you were trying to say but if I'm not, I think you're chasing an impossible and unrealistic goal with it.

Anyway...to take this particular digression and attempt to hammer it back into the original topic, I'd say that the main reason to colour your signal in the way in is precisely because that is what you wanted to do. Yes, that's a bit trite, but it's no less true for all that. Sometimes, adding the colour up front is exactly what you need to give you the best possible sound for what you're trying to do. Yes, it carries the risk of having to re-track if you're wrong, but not doing it leaves you trying to play catch-up at mix-time and quite possibly will end up leaving you with something that sounds almost, but not quite, like what you wanted and not as good as it could have been. (Urgh! Horrible run-on sentence there, but I hope everyone can see what I'm trying to say...)
Old 15th October 2013
  #48
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
What about engineers who start building rough mixes while still tracking?
That happens in "pre-mixing" and is why it shares the same process flow as recording.

Good case here though, now you're getting on topic too and I like that, thanks for this point!

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
What about the point during the mix when you decide that the best way is really going to be to re-track something (perhaps everything)?
That is always a possibility, but at that point management is going to get involved, it is a difficult spot that mixing engineer is putting him/herself in, I would say not a good proposal by that mixing engineer... The management will have thoughts like this: "The process step dedicated to avoiding this situation is pre-mixing. We put mixing engineer X as the key responsible in that process step and the mixing engineer got paid for doing the work designed to mitigate precisely that risk. The mixing engineer then reported the readiness decision and we trusted him. Now the mixing engineer realises the decision was wrong and wants another shot on the decision. In this case we execute contingency strategy X to deal with that issue..."

The bottom line is this: The pre-mixing process step exists because it is critical to the success of a production. Bad decisions in productions always produce issues out of risks, but when they are efficiently captured and dealt with these productions reach success anyway.
Old 15th October 2013
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Aaron Miller's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
why do anything on the way in?
the real question is, if you know what you want, why not do it on the way in?
My thoughts exactly!
Old 15th October 2013
  #50
I started EQing and compressing on the way in because I grew tired of handing a client a rough mix with the qualifier that, "well, it's not mixed yet". They don't want to hear that. They do understand that a final mix is different than a rough, sure, but my clients want the roughs to reflect what they did that day in the studio; they don't want to have to use too much of their imagination when listening to playback of a performance they're still high off of.

If the rough is more complete, they're more at ease with how the final will shape up. Fewer surprises for them means fewer surprises and headaches for me when we get to mixdown. That means I won't head off in a direction they're not comfortable with and have to start over. It just makes communication easier and more straightforward.

Once I started "coloring sound on the way in" for the method I just described, I found that it's less work for me anyway. And like others have said, if I know what I want, I may as well get it now than have to recreate it later.

All this has made my workflow faster, my tracking skills better, and my clients happier. Win!
Old 15th October 2013
  #51
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
this is not how the pros do it

First of all, you left out PRE "post mixing" and POST "pre-mixing"! Without these critical steps, the mixing engineer is left with a defunct process model that is only 35% emotion and 65% energy instead of the targeted 37.5% vs 62.5%.

Secondly, the process flow needs to be trammed in the permise of the deriliator or other mid-side device BEFORE the validation of OK/Ready, otherwise contority and arundment are not guaranteed.

Third, by splitting the automation work "as a whole in half, doing it in the beginning and at the end", tracks moving at velocity can be significance-based.

I am afraid your concepts are simply not advanced enough to achieve professional results. They are over-simplified and dumbed-down versions of the truly complex workflows that 'real' engineers use. You really need more observational integrity to reverse-engineer the real techniques so you can catch up to those whose processes are, as we all know, Top Secret.
I could not have put this better myself...

Tony
Old 17th October 2013
  #52
Lives for gear
 
twentyhertz's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothVibe View Post
This comment puts you in a difficult position
I disagree
Quote:
I wouldn't go there...
You probably wouldn't. But I did. The more you talk the more it becomes clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't really actually care where you read/dreamt this drivel. I would normally ignore people like you but you keep popping up spoiling threads that might be useful to some people; spouting your kooky PARADIGM SHIFTING SUPER SECRETS, confusing those who don't know better and annoying those who do. Just give it a rest.
Old 17th October 2013
  #53
Lives for gear
 
twentyhertz's Avatar
 

Oh and sorry for contributing to the derailment of your thread, OP.
Old 17th October 2013
  #54
Lives for gear
 
rolo's Avatar
 

I usually have things pretty much sketched out in my head before i even track myself, my bands, or the bands who hire me. Ive been sculpting sounds for a very, very long time. Ive tried LOTS of great gear and have learned to use those many pieces. It does not take me much time to get the "sounds" of a session. I get right to the point and then spend lotsa time onthe song itself.
It also makes mixing a [email protected] load easier.

Ive only had a couple of occasions where i said... Man i wish i would have done that instead of that. And even then, the artist wouldnt give a crap about the difference.

Finally, the only plug ins i really like are the UAD stuff. Nothing beats outboard eqs, comps, limiters, stomp boxes, eventides, etc.
Old 17th October 2013
  #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothVibe View Post
You must be missing my point? Read my details below very carefully and think them through, if you then disagree you must either be defending a process model with lower efficiency, or I have a flaw in my process model, in which case you need to invalidate my points below...
Well, I do this for a living don't forget. I've had the luxury of working with some amazing engineers and producers (and a few dodgy ones), in some great setups. I've done a few things of note myself. I'm not "missing your point", I'm just saying you don't express it in the same terms as everybody else, which makes the advice you give out a) nonsensical to those who do this professionally, or even as an experienced amateur and b) needlessly confusing to the novice.


You can notice that the main process step is in the beginning of each iterative process flow, the "post-" is in the middle and the "pre-" is at the end of each iterative process flow, forget the terms for now, just focus on "post-recording" being something about recording after the main recording process step and "pre-mixing" being something about mixing thereafter. Both the "post-" and the "pre-" process steps are mainly readiness validation steps, but they are carried out with different goals in mind by different roles within the same process flow, because "ready" means different things to different people - it needs to be ready both on the current process flow level (the recording engineer must approve the recording is ready) and ready going into the next process flow (the mixing engineer must approve the recording is ready for mixing), when the mix engineer says it is not "ready" for mixing during pre-mixing because there are certain effects that have been imprinted into the content and must be left as options to give the mixing engineer the conditions he/she needs, then the mix engineer does not approve mixing readiness on that recording and mixing never starts. You should not resume to mixing when it is not ready for mixing, don't you agree? When BOTH the "post-" and the "pre-" process steps validate OK/Ready, then the process flow as a whole is successful, you will never have to go back to that process flow after that because it succeeded, you are ready to resume to the next process flow and the mix engineer has at that point ensured all his/her need-to-have conditions are met for being able to make the mixing process flow successful, he/she can work efficiently enough with what he/she got to work on. In other words - the process model ensures end-to-end quality and efficiency.[/QUOTE]

See what I mean (I doubt you do, but hopefully others will!)? This is needlessly complicated.

Plan your project.
Record it.
Tidy up any loose ends.
Mix it.
Master it.
Distribute it.

No need for "post mastering" or "post mixing". I've just sent an EP off for mastering yesterday. There was NO "post mixing" needed, unless you call exporting and uploading "post mixing" (I don't, nor does the rest of the industry). The mixes were ready for mastering! Am I missing a stage?

Again - I think your lack of contact with "real world" studios, and book/internet learning, is leading you slightly astray. But you CAN get back to the real world! have a read of the Q+A with well known engineers in this forum....watch Pensado's place. There's a website called Recordproduction that has loads of interviews with famous names, hosted by a good friend of mine (Mike Banks) - search it on facebook. It's got loads of great stuff there, you'll learn loads of how REAL producers and mix engineers work. But you won't find any references to "post mixing" and "pre mastering".

It's one thing having your own view on things, but telling people who work with major and indie labels professionally that they're "defending an inefficient workflow" is quite frankly insulting, especially when you regularly describe the MOST inefficient ways of approaching a simple task! I've lost track of the number of "real" recordings I've finished this year - it's included roles on many albums, singles (some high charting) and unsigned work.....you? Am I the one with the inefficient workflow?

I (and others) have repeatedly tried to point out the "flaws" in your workflow...but you don't listen, sadly. It's a shame - I don't think you'll ever make progress with the path you're going down.
Old 17th October 2013
  #56
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Well, I do this for a living don't forget. I've had the luxury of working with some amazing engineers and producers (and a few dodgy ones), in some great setups. I've done a few things of note myself. I'm not "missing your point", I'm just saying you don't express it in the same terms as everybody else, which makes the advice you give out a) nonsensical to those who do this professionally, or even as an experienced amateur and b) needlessly confusing to the novice.

See what I mean (I doubt you do, but hopefully others will!)? This is needlessly complicated.

Plan your project.
Record it.
Tidy up any loose ends.
Mix it.
Master it.
Distribute it.

No need for "post mastering" or "post mixing". I've just sent an EP off for mastering yesterday. There was NO "post mixing" needed, unless you call exporting and uploading "post mixing" (I don't, nor does the rest of the industry). The mixes were ready for mastering! Am I missing a stage?

Again - I think your lack of contact with "real world" studios, and book/internet learning, is leading you slightly astray. But you CAN get back to the real world! have a read of the Q+A with well known engineers in this forum....watch Pensado's place. There's a website called Recordproduction that has loads of interviews with famous names, hosted by a good friend of mine (Mike Banks) - search it on facebook. It's got loads of great stuff there, you'll learn loads of how REAL producers and mix engineers work. But you won't find any references to "post mixing" and "pre mastering".

It's one thing having your own view on things, but telling people who work with major and indie labels professionally that they're "defending an inefficient workflow" is quite frankly insulting, especially when you regularly describe the MOST inefficient ways of approaching a simple task! I've lost track of the number of "real" recordings I've finished this year - it's included roles on many albums, singles (some high charting) and unsigned work.....you? Am I the one with the inefficient workflow?

I (and others) have repeatedly tried to point out the "flaws" in your workflow...but you don't listen, sadly. It's a shame - I don't think you'll ever make progress with the path you're going down.
This is very understandable and efficient enough on this experience level, when you know what you're doing, you don't need to add anything more to that, would only complicate things.

Please note I was definitely not telling that you should optimize the process model you use eventhough it's possible that your process model could be further optimized, I was more referring to the points I was making such as it's probably a good idea to be ready going into mixing, rather than ending up with the conclusion that the production is not ready for mixing, halfway into the budgeted mixing project slot. That setups the project for an execution mess.

My process model is to a great degree business driven as well and meant to automatically exclude certain scenarios and mistakes in a business context, make the project robust and structured enough and hence set the project risk at a good default level. An experienced pro knows what choices to make when, how, why, less experienced pros don't, they forget, they become distracted and so on and that dramatically increases the risk level of executing many projects with a lot of unique challenges, projects become issue prone, the issues start eating on their business...

In my opinion it is better to execute against a process model until you can prove you are able to execute that in a business context with project success, when that is a fact you can go from a strict mode to a less strict mode and eventually when you get a lot of experience, you can go into free mode because you execute each project as efficiently or even more efficiently without the process model. But that's on the expert level.

psycho_monkey, I can understand that simplicity is powerful in the hands of an expert, I'm not at all against that idea and that the way you do things and because it works and on that level it is also the way others should do it as well, I agree they should, but I think less experienced pros/engineers than you are not strict enough to that simplicity when unique never handled before scenarios occur in the business context. You resume to master when the mix is ready, they resume to master when the mix is not ready. You don't resume to master when the mix is not ready, they don't resume to master when the mix is ready. Both implement the same process model simplicity, but in the reality the conditions for success with that simplicity are totally different between the two experience levels. Not always, but frequently enough to put a big enough risk on the success of their business.
Old 17th October 2013
  #57
Gear Addict
 
kirkbross's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by twentyhertz View Post
Oh and sorry for contributing to the derailment of your thread, OP.
It's quite alright. I enjoy the passion

I've decided not to print ANYTHING on the way in. No EQ, no compression, no signal, no mics, no instruments, no musicians... nothing. From now on my recording sessions will consist of me sitting naked in the desert, alone and silent, with my eyes closed.
Old 17th October 2013
  #58
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkbross View Post
It's quite alright. I enjoy the passion

I've decided not to print ANYTHING on the way in. No EQ, no compression, no signal, no mics, no instruments, no musicians... nothing. From now on my recording sessions will consist of me sitting naked in the desert, alone and silent, with my eyes closed.
You can always take it from there...
Old 18th October 2013
  #59
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KEL View Post

.....

You can't light an interview set in post.
Ummmm. I'm really afraid but..... in fact you can... :

http://youtu.be/g6ykAYmKarU

(sorry, but I couldn't resist)
Old 18th October 2013
  #60
Gear Nut
 

If a singer's mic is effected how you want it to be in the end, the singer will probably get more comfortable or "inspired" than if it's dry. If you put ambient delay on a soloing guitarist while they're tracking, they'll be more comfortable with how they sound from the get go.

I don't necessarily like having effects going that have to be permanent, but if you know what you want, do it.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump