Daniel Schauer did a Podcast with Me

[Anderton]

It's part of his "Democratizing Music" series, and as far as I can tell, I didn't make too much of a fool of myself

 

Check it out here.

[KuruPrionz]

I'm 33 minutes in, it's an interesting interview. I'll revisit and catch another round.

Daniel asks some interesting questions, it's obvious he does research before the interview so he's not just asking canned prefab.

[KuruPrionz]

Now I've listened to the rest of it. Thanks for sharing, I learned some things and re-visited my own thoughts on things like tempo changes.

 

Plus, I have IK Stealth Limiter but I don't think I've ever used it. So now...

 

If anybody else is reading, I would recommend you have a listen - it's well worth the time.

[Mike Rivers]

I usually don't listen to interviews with famous engineers/producers/musicians, but since this is Craig, and someone I know a bit, I gave it a shot and ended up listening through the whole thing. Like so much of Craig's writings, the interview isn't just "how do you do this?" or "what's your favorite," but here, Craig addresses the question with an explanation of how he thinks about the problem in front of him, what he's really trying to accomplish, and what would be the most efficient route to the solution, given the tools that he has and knows how to use.

 

As part of his approach to the solution, he explains what the tool does in order to get closer to what he's seeking. This is important because not only does it show the route to the answer, but teaches you about his particular choice of tool and what it does to change the sound, and in what way. So even if you don't have the same plug-in that he chose to work with, you can probably take the same approach with a plug-in that you have.

 

He also stresses the importance of not trying to duplicate a sound that was used on another recording, but to decide, for the particular project at hand, what you want it to sound like, and use the tool to accomplish that. He doesn't let us forget that it's your music and it needs to sound like you.

 

As a hardware person (I built several things from Craig's Electronic Projects for Musicians), his approach to designing a device came through loud and clear - listen to what you've built does, and if it doesn't do what you need, change something (or try a different approach). I guess this is why I've always enjoyed his writings and, whether I need the tool he's describing, I learn what it does, why it works, and have something to file away in my feeble memory to dredge out if I'm looking for a new tool that worked for him in a similar situation.

 

I have to comment, though, on his assessment of tape as being horrid and getting rid of it was a great thing. Tape isn't horrid, but it requires maintenance and understanding - which is really no different than with software, just a different skill set required. I'm not a defender of the "it's the tape that makes the recordings we love the most sound the way they do." But by the time that tape was almost entirely phased out of the recording/production field, tape recorders were amazingly good - though the need for maintenance and understanding never went away. So I understand steering most contemporary recordists away from tape is a good idea, and to set aside the belief that your work will never sound a particular way without tape. But tape recording should be treated with more respect.

 

But, anyhow, if you have an hour, listening to this interview is a great way to learn how Craig thinks through problems and comes up with solutions that are practical, gets them music to sounding how he wants it, and learn something about the technology or process along the way.

[BMD]

I enjoyed that, even though quite a bit of it went way over my head

 

Daniel sounded a bit nervous at times. I think he was overawed

 

 

Edit: I wouldn't mind interviewing Craig. But about mundane things. Like 'What's your favourite thing to eat for breakfast?' 'Do you believe in ghosts?' etc.

[Anderton]

@Mike - I have NEVER seen myself analyzed like that, nor have I really thought about my approach...I just blindly do what I do But it was fascinating to see myself through someone else's eyes (especially someone with analytical abilities).

 

As to tape, ah yes...when DAT came out, I liked to remind people that analog tape with Dolby SR had better specs It's the contrarian in me, I guess. I do believe it had more or less reached the zenith of its performance when digital came along, but it was the variability that drove me nuts. You could never have a copy that sounded as good as the original, never bounce without degradation, never do a backup in the sense we can do it today, never have the performance not change from one week to the next. Taken in isolation, there's nothing wrong with tape. But digital can be part of a system, which is a huge deal for me.

 

I do feel that tape is a signal processor, and it just happens to create effects that people like. Whether people like those effects because they became accustomed to hearing it in the music is debatable. Yet I think if only digital had existed, tape had never existed, and someone from Waves came up with a plug-in they called a "pleasurizer" that had the same effect as tape, they'd sell a bunch. It does do a certain "something" to the sound.

[KuruPrionz]

Sharing some thoughts on the "tape is awful - no it's different and worthy of some respect" conversation.

 

For me (and probably many like me), my struggles with recording seem to boil down to one insurmountable factor -" the Artist vs the Engineer in the Actual Real World Currently Occupied".

99.99% of the time, those two individuals are both me. 100% of the time, the Actual Real World Currently Occupied is a paramount factor.

 

A properly designed, built, cabled, tested and ready to use studio space with zero issues is simply out of reach and will remain so. Being both a gigging musician and guitar tech, I've learned that Cables, Connectors, and Switches (in that order) are usually the cause of problems/interruptions in an audio system (pots that fail to pass signal or are intermittent in random spots as you turn can take you out too, or drive you nuts!!!)..

 

As a now-computer based Artist/Engineer, I've had a very few software glitches and all were pretty simple to solve.

 

At the point of interruption, the Engineer must step up to the plate and the Artist cannot exist in that environment. Since the Artist is the only reason the Engineer exists (it will NEVER be the other way around!!!!), this is an interruption of creativity, something is lost, even if it is a tiny chunk of my soul or an expression that I might have captured if my gear was cooperative. I include things like learning to use a new microphone in the Engineer sphere of influence but the biggie that going digital simplifies (note that I did not say solves!!!!) is cabling and connectors.

 

I can connect an 8 track audio interface to my computer using ONE cable. Plugins require ZERO cables. I've wired up a complete patch bay for an 8 track tape based studio, fussing with ground loop prevention, routing audio and power cables away from each other, etc.

 

No getting around it, the 8 track tape system will require MANY cables and connectors. You will need a dedicated mixer, sends and returns for the tape recorder, sends and returns for outboard gear, a way to keep track of all these connections and the realization that a blown take caused by a system defect may mean needing to use more tape - which is certainly not inexpensive. Going digital can alleviate most if not all of those problems and streamline troubleshooting so the Artist can get back in the game more quickly (and with fewer dings to their wallet!).

 

All this is to say nothing of the space requirements for going 8 or 16 track while providing full access to all cables and connectors for efficient troubleshooting.

A digital system is more compact in that regard and my track count is not limited by the recorder, I had some 66 tracks of parallel processing on one of my re-mixes and I learned a LOT doing that.

 

I doubt we would be where we are now without tape, I don't "hate" tape. If circumstances change radically, I would consider tape as part of a studio system. At this point, it isn't going to happen. I don't love digital but it has made so many things possible that I don't consider tape to be viable option. The Artist has no regard for nostalgia unless it serves a purpose in the purely creative aspect of generating new music with a nostalgic influence. Stuff is just stuff and will never be anything else.

 

Give me a pencil and paper and I will draw something but there will be no reverence for either item while I am creating. I'm not in that "zone" at that point in time and I cannot be or creativity comes to a halt. It really is just that simple.

 

I don't think I'm alone in this, many are in the same situation even if they've not had both experiences and only know digital.

[Mike Rivers]

@Mike - I have NEVER seen myself analyzed like that, nor have I really thought about my approach...I just blindly do what I do But it was fascinating to see myself through someone else's eyes (especially someone with analytical abilities).

 

I hope you weren't offended. But, really, the thing that stuck with me from the interview was that you look at what you're working on - whether it's a piece of music or a piece of studio equipment - with an eye toward what does it really do, what do I need, and how they relate. And your writing follows your workflow - whether you're reviewing a product or designing something new - you clearly describe what's happening under the hood that explains what you hear (or don't hear) when evaluating the result. That's really important to me, and while I'm not a designer (though I still claim firsties on the "monitor controller') when I'm evaluating a tool, I look for things that I can measure and relate those to what I hear.

 

 

Apologies for going off track here, but we both have some useful points related to what I was impressed with in this interview. But it's a big world out there.

 

 

As to tape, ah yes...when DAT came out, I liked to remind people that analog tape with Dolby SR had better specs It's the contrarian in me, I guess.

 

And (specs are a specialty of mine) need to be taken as just data points, while the important thing is importance to the end of the project. Specs be damned - when I first heard a solo piano recorded digitally, I was ready to take it home. No flutter, no tape hiss, really solid low notes. Distortion characteristics between tape (with or without noise reduction) are different from digital, but are present with both. For me, the the value of those "improvement" with digital recording made for a better final product than with the "better specs" tape. And I saw digital editing - even the kludge of editing PCM-F1 digital recording between two VCRs - meant that I could make a better product faster, particularly since nearly all of my recording projects were (and still are) musicians playing live, with "fixed" done by editing rather than overdubbing - though I've been (too, sometimes) guilty of doing punch-ins on analog, and later, digital, media.

 

Does the difference between analog and digital intermodulation distortion characteristics matter? Sure, but that will get (and has gotten) better. But the tradeoffs, for me, tilted the scale toward digital. But for those who could afford Ampex ATR-100 tape decks (and maintain them), or Nagras for field recording, I wouldn't try to change their mind if that's what they preferred to use. I did plenty of analog tape editing when that's what the project needed, but I appreciated the tangible benefits of digital editing - though admittedly I was a late adopter in my own setup because of cost. If I had a project on tape that required a lot of editing, I'd find someone with a digital editing system that was good enough not to change the audio in a harmful way and worked on that. What's important with me (and you) is getting better end results.

 

True, there were some pretty dicey digital recording systems over the years, and most of them were enthusiastically adoped as they came along. F-1. DAT, ADAT and DTRS . . . and some systems that recorded directly to CD-ROM - all systems that had better or not-so-better conversion between digital and anslog and back, but all of which had predictable media problems. Hard drives took a while to catch on because of cost - I came close to buying a Turtle Beach 56K system (the poor man's Sound Tools) but when a hard drive that would barely hold a CD's worth of edited material cost $1,000, that was too expensive for a reel of tape for me, so I stuck with analog. I had the knowledge, experience, and test equipment to keep analog recorders working as well as they could, and it was frequent practice around here to take a DAT out in the field and, as soon as I got home, transferred it to tape. Today, if someone offered me a freshly overhauled ATR-100 for $100, I'd probably take it, but I doubt it would get any use other than to play tapes. And, thanking my lucky stars and a lot of study by archivists and chemists, I've been lucky enough to have encountered only one seriously damaged tape that couldn't be fully (but mostly) played.

 

I do believe it had more or less reached the zenith of its performance when digital came along, but it was the variability that drove me nuts. You could never have a copy that sounded as good as the original, never bounce without degradation, never do a backup in the sense we can do it today, never have the performance not change from one week to the next.

 

I suppose the "it" to which you're referring here is tape. Your observations are absolutely correct, and are well supported. But changes, while noticeable, are, or at least with good equipment, should be in the "who cares?" category. But many felt that this in itself was very important, hence the adoption of digital recording ASAP. To the end listener, none of that matters - what he hears, with smart and sensible production, is something better than the the original performance. One pro-digital argument is from historians and archivists who are interested in what it sounded like at the microphone - it's important to preserve an nth order harmonic from an instrument even though it might not be heard by a listener.

 

Taken in isolation, there's nothing wrong with tape. But digital can be part of a system, which is a huge deal for me.

 

Absolutely!

 

I do feel that tape is a signal processor, and it just happens to create effects that people like. Whether people like those effects because they became accustomed to hearing it in the music is debatable.

 

That's how we see it today, and we can debate whether passing a recording through a real analog recorder and through a "tape simulator" plug-in is best. But there are so many ways - both with analog and digital processors - for making a recording sound better in the ear of the producer/engineer. That's their job.

 

Yet I think if only digital had existed, tape had never existed, and someone from Waves came up with a plug-in they called a "pleasurizer" that had the same effect as tape, they'd sell a bunch. It does do a certain "something" to the sound.

 

And that's their job. Will the impetus to make a first generation recording sound "better" will be with us forever? Sure. It's what we do.

[Anderton]

I hope you weren't offended.

 

Far from it! It was fascinating to see myself through someone else's eyes. I learned something about myself.

[Chip McDonald]

Red leds breakdown voltage = 2.2 volts and junction capacitance. This is the kind of content I need, makes me think "what are the parameters governed by the color of the leds? Are there any that have a non-linear breakdown voltage? Does anyone make a pedal that parallels one with a ge diode?"....

[Anderton]

I haven't tested blue LEDs, but it seems the higher they go on the spectrum, the higher the breakdown voltage. Red LEDs are perfect for passive pickups.

[Chip McDonald]

I haven't tested blue LEDs, but it seems the higher they go on the spectrum, the higher the breakdown voltage. Red LEDs are perfect for passive pickups.

 

Fascinating. I know John Landgraff of Landgraff Dynamic Overdrive fame was ultra meticulous in doing tests of his leds and matching components, to surprisingly sublime results. I wish there was more written/research done about both the sweet spots of components and their "operating windows". I know Jeorge Tripps and James Santiago gets into that, Mike Fuller, but it seems like so many pedal "designs" now are just minor changes to R/C values. Cork sniffery applied to leds should happen!

 

/ I used a Rockman X100 in jazz band in HS, and I used to go back and forth with the little trim pot on the back; was he trying to hit that value, or just wanting a single coil/double coil input offset?

// hey.... how was that *plastic knob* on Rockmans *conductive*? When you touched them they hummed like the ground was being rerouted? Some sort of static effect?

/// hey again... I still have that X100, but it just makes a self-oscillator tone when turned on now, like reversed-wah?

//// Tom used those crappy switches because of cost, or packaging constraints (depth)?

///// Interviews with people are never technical enough!!!