Mike Rivers

Glad you finally got here, Bob. There's a different between impresonators, tribute bands, and members of dissolved bands hiring musicians to tour or record with them. An impersonator is just that, a sound-alike, look-sorta-alike, who does all the songs as closely as possible to the original, and everyone who attends the show knows it. A tribute band is similar, though often less look-alike unless it's a Kiss tribute band, and it works like a band - the same people all the time (allowing for some turnover), the same instruments, vocals, and arrangements as the original. After The Beatles dissolved, Paul formed Wings and didn't call it The Beatles, and they did Wings songs. And now he tours under his own name with a reasonably stable band, and that's not The Beatles either. At least that's how I see it. In a previous post, I mentioned the bluegrass band The Seldom Scene, They formed and played their first gigs as a band in 1971, and the last original member left in 2018. But the band still exists, the name exists (there's a business arrangement) and they still play the hits as well as new music. On the other hand, there was a Flatt and Scruggs tribute band, the Earls of Leicester (that's pronounced "Lester" in England), made up of contemporary bluegrass heavyweights, recreating the classic songs of Lester and Earl. They made one record, and get together to play festivals. They're a tribute, but I wouldn't really call them a band. At least that's how I see it all.

Hair Apparent

Personally, I wouldn't pay a dollar for earbuds, but some people can't live very long without them. The Shure KSE1500 is an electrostatic earbud system that costs $2500, so these Fender earbuds are just a drop in the bucket.

Lots of bands in my world go on forever even though there are no longer any original members. The Seldom Scene is a good example. The current band plays most of the songs that the original band was particularly well known for as well as some new songs, and and some old songs that the band never got around to doing. In bluegrass music, there isn't the compulsion to write a whole album's worth of new songs when it's time to go into the studio. I think there's still a Persuasions, too, though I'm not sure if the current edition does Greatful Dead songs.

Well, the reason why they were put in analog consoles in the first place was so that you could have automation without the cost of moving faders. Grouping for manual control was just the sideshow, but useful none the less, because it saved passing channels through another stage (subgroup) of the console on the way to the main mix. The bugaboo with VCAs is that early ones had some leakage of the control voltage into the signal path, resulting in some unwanted modulation of the channel audio when they were moved too fast. Of course in software, that's not a problem as long as the math is accurate. But with software you don't really need to assign tracks to buses if you just want to control their level simultaneously, you just multiply them by the same number, with that number generated by moving a fader. I guess that's an enhancement. Another enhancement is that you can create a graphic of the effective fader position in the software mixing console view. This served the "indicator" function of a moving fader. This can be implemented in a couple of ways. The classic VCA hardware fader had a pair of LEDs next to the fader that would tell you if the physical fader was above or below what the actual gain setting is. Most automation systems would allow you to edit automation by engaging the Write mode and moving the fader, but to avoid sudden changes in level, the new automation data wasn't written until you crossed the "null" point with the fader knob. With a virtual indicator of the channel gain setting, it's easier than moving the fader until both LEDs went out. Well, yeah. But doesn't everyone work with too many tracks already? I guess it could be helpful if you have 12 stacked guitar tracks all playing the same thing slightly out of sync and out of tune and with a different amp simulator on each one. It's really just like clicking on a bunch of tracks, assigning them to a control group, and putting a handle on it. I suppose one advantage of calling a "control group" a "VCA" is to trick old farts like me into thinking "Hey, this works just like my old API."

That's probably me, though I have no idea of what you mean by that. Within the mixing console paradigm, a VCA is a circuit, often implemented on a chip, and the fader doesn't carry the audio signal, it adjusts the control voltage going to the VCA, which carries the audio. The alternative is the motorized fader, that does carry the audio signal, and the control voltage drives the motor that moves the position. The same control voltage can be applied to multiple faders, or multiple VCAs, and that that's how you get fader groups. The advantage of a moving fader automation system is that the fader knob serves as an indicator to give you a visual idea of the channel level. This is easy to implement in a DAW that uses a mixing console paradigm for its control panel. With VCAs, the only time the faders move is when you move them. If you have several VCAs grouped to a single master fader, when you move that fader, the levels on the slave channels change, but their fader positions don't. But just to be sure I know what I'm talking about, does VCA mean Voltage Controlled Attenuator? Or does it stand for something else that might be meaningful to whatever you use it for. I recognize that with a DAW, "Voltage" is represented by a digital word, as is the "Attenuation," but the functions carry through from analog to digital. Modular synths, and even non-modular synths, use(d) a control voltage, which is actually a voltage, to control many different things - pitch, amplitude (volume), modulation frequency and depth, and waveform, to name a few.

I don't either. Is there a new definition of a mixer VCA channel? The way these newfangled software designers don't know their history, I wouldn't be surprised if it's an old name borrowed to attach to a new feature. But if it's not an emulation of VCAs in an analog console, then I don't know what to say. That's a kind of complicated way of thinking of it. In an analog console with VCA automation, there are usually several VCA groups available. You assign a few channels to the same VCA group, assign one channel to be the group master, and then all the other channels in the group follow that fader. Functionally, it's like assigning channels to a subgroup, or, with panning, to a pair of subgroups, un-assigning those channels to the main mix, and feeding the subgroup to the main mix instead. DAWs tend to befuzzlate "track" and "channel" as it's convenient, but I've gotten over that. I envision that a VCA "channel" is like the master fader of a VCA automation group, and of course you can write automation to that track. And you can probably write automation to individual tracks within that VCA group, too, and still use a master fader or, if you will, automation track, to control the level of the whole shebang. Alternatively, you could put the drum reverb bus fader on the same VCA group as the drum mix (or whatever of the drums you're sending to that reverb) and it would be like a post-fader send. VCA groups were mostly used for muting, like to mute the background vocals when you don't need them. This was more important when you wanted to get rid of the tape hiss on a track that wasn't part of the mix. But, also, it's used for group fades. More likely, I am. It's certainly a feature that I would have expected to be available in just about any DAW, but users have had a long time to either get used to doing group fader moves and mutes some other way that the software designers can make something old new again and call it an upgrade or update.

Today, July 6 2019, is the 10th anniversary of the blockbuster video United Breaks Guitars, which remained at the top of the most watched music video on YouTube for a month. For those three people here who have never heard of this, here's a history and link to the video.

This is the era of gender neutrality. It's "Walkpersons."

I did the "radio station music director" thing on those videos and I never really got to the songs. I didn't like her voice and style. She'd have to be the next Bob Dylan of Neil Young in order to be more than a smash hit on Twitter.

If I remember correctly, the latest series of StudioLive consoles can save preamp settings along with a snapshot or scene or whatever they call it. Same for the Fat Channel settings, which has always been a StudioLive feature. You don't need Studio One for those unless you're recording. The sort of things I was thinking of that make the combination of the hardware console and software program a complete system are how Studio One can be controlled from the console work surface and vice versa. Now that they have moving faders, the console faders - which are your level indicators as well as controllers - work in conjunction with automation written in the software. And don't the larger StudioLive consoles have transport controls, too, that control the software? Since it now emulates Mackie Control and HUI, you can get that interactive control with just about any DAW software. To me, good workflow means the ability, when tracking, to be able to work like you have a console and a recorder. While all of those functions are supported in most any DAW program, having a program that's designed with the console in mind, and vice versa, makes - or at least I should say, has the potential to - workflow smoother, and certainly easier to set up when you're starting with a living room floor full of sealed cartons.

I recall a couple of Steinberg interfaces that integrated a couple of features with Cubase or Nuendo interfaces but that was several years ago. In the Goode Olde days, "Digital Audio Workstation" didn't mean a piece of software as it does today, but rather a system that included hardware and software (think Fostex Foundation or Fairlight). PreSonus brought this concept back with their close integration of Studio One with their new digital consoles and interfaces. While the software would work with any interface, and any interface would work with other software, using the two PreSonus products together as a system gave the user features and functions that aren't available or don't work as smoothly in a mixed system. . . . although it took them entirely too long for them to make the console function as a full DAW control surface, though I think they have it now. While you have to get used to Studio One's workflow and graphics, the combination of the software and hardware does indeed make a complete workstation that could maybe even make me happy if I wanted to work that way.

Hi, Gus! Good to see you again. I think it's a good thing that Pro Tools is getting back to their roots - supporting the full time professionals. There are enough DAWs for "the common man" so that Avid doesn't really need that business. What they need to do in order to keep that business is to be sure that every update that the subscribers get works and doesn't break anything else - and they can do that better when they aren't dealing with $500 customers who expect free lifetime support and upgrades. PreSonus has a good thing going with Studio One now that few other manufacturers bundle much in the way of DAW software with their hardware. While Studio One isn't my cup of tea, if I was starting from scratch, I could see starting with it and sticking with it. Buy a Behringer interface these days and you get a link to download Audacity. Actually, I have a lot of respect for Audacity but it's no Pro Tools.

Is anyone else getting this error message after posting a reply or new message? Despite the error message, when returning to the forum I see that my message has been posted intact. It's happened several times lately.

. . . and that they made a thinner and more water resistant phone. There are some who I believe would find both of those features desirable, and being Apple sheep, will quickly adapt to an alternate headphone connection. And perhaps it encouraged people with $500+ earphones (not Beats) to take the next step up with a $500+ outboard DAC/headphone amp. And then, they have an even thicker phone, but now it's a phone system.

Well, I'm a Verizon customer, and while their service is nearly always there, they keep messing with my promos and discounts, and I usually have to make three calls before I get someone who is actually willing to help me. Last time, though, on the third call (three days after the first call) I got someone who not only went out of her way to get my rate fixed, but was really nice and explained what she did in order to restore my discounts. It turned out not to be trivial - after trying to add back a discount and having the system not allow it, she deleted my account and re-created it with the discounts and so far it's stuck. Since who you get when you call is totally random, I'll probably end up with another joker next time. There are far more of those than there are aces. If you consider web support to be customer service, well, I remember best what I've had the most trouble with most recently, and that's Starbucks. Everything that I wanted to do regarding my rewards card is on its own web page, with none of them linked. I had to go to Google to find the right Starbucks page. You'd think a corporation with that much money could hire a good web designer but apparently they got one who didn't know beans - coffee beans, that is.

Innovated away the headphone jack?

The clever fellow at Apple who engineered out the headphone jack?

I'd recommend doing what I do, and have been doing for 20 years or more. I'd visit the used computer store (or eBay equivalent) and buy a two or three year old "business grade" computer, Dell or H-P, with Windows 7. If it's a desktop computer, it should have at least a couple of expansion slots. If it's a laptop, good luck, because few have offered anything beyond USB expansion for some years now. You definitely get more bang for smaller bucks on the Windows side, and that's a good thing for someone wanting to get started in computer-based music. But . . . depending on what kind of "music" he plans to do - which he may not figure out for a couple of years - the first computer may become inadequate for the work of choice fairly quickly. So it's important not to spend too much money when getting your feet wet. I've never used a Mac, but I believe that it's the right path where video is involved. Also, Windows computers never really supported Thunderbolt, limiting the choice of audio interface hardware. Now USB-C seems to be taking over the Thunderbolt path, but a three year old Windows PC won't support it. There are plenty of excellent USB2 and PCIe interfaces so that won't be a problem until it's time for a major expansion, and by then the user shouldn't still be a beginner, so he will be better able to make an intelligent choice on his own.

I hardly ever use Pro Tools, so I haven't even looked at what it puts in its project folder. Basically, though, all contemporary DAWs (well, with the exception of Audacity, for one) create WAV files, so there's something that can be imported into just about any DAW. Where you get in to trouble, though, is that the bounds of the WAV file are when you start and stop recording. If you record a whole song start to finish, you get a file that's a few minutes long or longer. If you punch in a word, you get a file that might be shorter than a second. And unless you have the guts and gumption to un-do the last recording before punching in that same word again, you get another short file. All DAWs have a file naming convention that, with some thought, can be sorted out, and just about all of them are time-stamped broadcast wave format, but if you don't have really good documentation of what you recorded it can be difficult to put a take together from a pile of fragments, of which you really only used a handful in the final assembly. That's where consolidating tracks or whatever the program calls it - making a single file that plays what you hear - becomes valuable. But even if you have that as well as the 25 punch-ins, you might decide 5 years later that maybe a different one would be better, and then you have to figure out which one goes where. To which I say "what's the budget?" I often wonder about that. Sometimes I think they're just using different panning laws or whatever. It would seem that in theory, once that digital data stream leaves the A/D converter and is processed with 32-bit floating point or 64-bit processing, there wouldn't be a lot of room for variations. A summing bus is a summing bus...right? So it you tell Studio One or Pro Tools to add 2+2, wouldn't they kind of have to come up with 4? Or does it not work that way? Well, sure, there are standard pan curves, and non-standard pan curves, and different ways of calculating a crossfade which you get with every edit and punch. But depending on what kind of arithmetic you're using - 24-bit floating point in one system, 64-bit fixed point in the other system, for example - , 2+2 might add up to 3.9998265. Some people think that they can hear that.

There are two kinds of people who use Pro Tools. One really needs to use it. They work on complex projects, they know what they want to do, they learn how to do it in Pro Tools, they understand the reason behind newly added features (whether they think they'll ever use it or not), and it's how they make their living. Then there are people who never stop tinkering with their projects and don't want to miss what else they might be able to do with the next update. They choose Pro Tools because there's probably more written about it, and solutions and suggestions are everywhere. They usually have some other way to make a living. Why is not being able to open an old project a problem? It's done. If you want to re-issue the project, surely you have a copy of the stereo master well preserved. If you want to add a fresh track or change a vocal, you can import the audio files into a new project and start fresh. You have your original mix as a reference, and you know you don't want to re-create this exactly, so what's the problem? I realize that being able to open an old project as it is can be a time saver, for example if, after a week's work, you finally got the perfect vocal track pasted together from fourteen takes and ninety two punch-ins, you don't have to do that work all over again. But maybe, fifteen years later, the second take is really great and only needs a couple of fixes. As far as collaboration goes, how many people really do that on a large scale? Most people can work with passing a rough mix (updated as necessary) back and forth. You don't need to pass on the whole project until you're handing it over to someone to mix. And from articles I've read in the past few years, famous mixers usually want to be handed pre-mixed stems rather than a project with 400 tracks. It will continue to survive. Those who have a legitimate use for the program (not just the software, the whole Pro Tools world) won't bail out. Remember when Nashville studios were moving to Nuendo? That didn't last. They had Mitsubishi digital multitrack recorders when New York and LA had Sony, and that didn't last either. But the greatest number of users of any DAW aren't major studios. Other than perception, there's no reason why they can't do their projects on any of today's full featured DAWs. And some day they'll discover that they can't open their old Studio One or Cakewalk projects, just like Pro Tools. 25 years ago, we said that what we needed was a standard for DAW editing functions and project description files so that any program could open a project created in another program, but that hasn't happened, and it isn't likely to happen. One of the things that make that difficult is that we've become conditioned that digital recording is perfectly reproducible. We accepted, and sometimes even embraced the fact that a multitrack recording made on an Ampex sounds different when played back on a Studer or an Otari. A project tracked on a Soundcraft or MCI console will sound different when mixed on an API or SSL console. But - OHMYGAWD! - Pro Tools and Studio One use different arithmetical algorithms so if you could open the project in a different DAW, it would sound subtly different - which seems to be a big deal these days. .

Although unintended, I find that YouTube often does that for me, but unlike the streaming services, things just don't play out automatically (thank goodness), I have to do a little work and choose what I want to listen to. Several times when I've done a generic search (I usually use DuckDuckGo these days) for a tune or a player, there's a YouTube video that shows up. When I play that, I see a bunch of other videos that are similar (and usually some that aren't very similar) and for more time than I wanted to, I've followed that rabbit. Sometimes I indeed discover something new that I want to remember.

Still using my Mackie hard disk recorder and Soundcraft console and Sound Forge for editing and stereo recording. If I have to use a real DAW, it's usually Reaper, Mixbus, or ProTools 10 in that order.

Took a while to get password and user name sorted out, but I'm here now (again, I think)