Paging Bruce Swedien: Whaddya think of this theory?

[Bruce Swedien]

You folks are so cute! I love ya'....

 

I'm the one who turned this into Analogue vs Digital,,,

I just wanted to see if you would take the bait! You did!

 

At least you're not talking about Surround today! That's good.....

 

Here's something worthwhile to do - Try to figure out a way to get young people, that are interested in recording music, to experience and fall in love with the emotion of good music. We can come from any place and music takes us higher!

 

Quincy Jones once said to me: "To get out of whatever was distasteful, unpleasant, uncomfortable or painful - music can always sooth that. You just crawl in that world and reach into that black hole and grab something beautiful, and it will take you away from all of that."

 

It has always been incredible to me how recordings of musical integrity and high technical quality can convey deep felt emotions to the listener.

 

Certain kinds of music can give you physical energy. When Bea and I do housecleaning chores at home, or at the boat, we put some up-tempo music on the CD player, and it helps us to do the job easily, with great energy and quickly.The music of "Ladysmith Black Mambazo" definitely touches the primitive in the soul.

 

We are instantly plunged into a world of rhythms, melodies and sounds that are at the same time primal, and yet highly sophisticated rhythmically and harmonically. The breathtaking Zulu harmonies evoke incredible, deep emotion with only the naked human voice...humanity's first and perhaps finest instrument. This fantastic music trancends culture, language and virtually all other artificial barriers that attempt to divide the human race.

 

Interesting.....

 

Bruce Swedien

[Anderton]

<>

 

I didn't respond because you "got" what the topic was about...I think we're on the same page.

[Anderton]

<

 

It has always been incredible to me how recordings of musical integrity and high technical quality can convey deep felt emotions to the listener.>>

 

Well if they're interested in recording music, I sure HOPE they love the emotion of good music! If not, I don't think we'll get very good recordings .

 

But here's something about the "high technical quality" issue. I think a lot of people into recording believe that something is "good enough" without having a point of reference. For example, I was privileged to work with some really top notch recording and mastering engineers, and that set the standards to which I aspire. If your only frame of reference is overcompressed recordings made in someone's bedroom, you may not be aware of what you're missing.

 

What made me really aware of this is that I used to teach a recording class in Connecticut every summer. We had digital reverbs in the studio, and you know how I feel about digital reverbs...I just plain don't like 'em compared to the real thing. So every year, I took the class on a short field trip to a nearby church, which was large and had stone walls, and I'd do a single hand clap. Only then did they understand what reverb is SUPPPOSED to sound like. They still used the digital boxes, of course, because that's what they had. But they became much more successful and getting good sounds out of those boxes because a standard had been set to which they could aspire.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Anderton:

<>

 

I didn't respond because you "got" what the topic was about...I think we're on the same page.

Sorry!

[Bruce Swedien]

With the following I'm trying to increase my post count. (The problem is I had to help Bea clean the barn this morning!)

 

I love this -> "We've all seen the engineers who profess to try and accurately reproduce a sound source with no color, no changes. That's fine. A bit lofty and inherently naive, but that ok. It produces interesting results."

 

That statement is so naive, it hurts! That kind of thinking totally eliminates the one thing that gives an individual some originality! That one thing is -"IMAGINATION"

 

We won't understand or improve our own abilities in making recordings until we get past the nuts, bolts, graphs and general dog-doo of the hypertechnical. First understand the pscychological of the technique -then learn where the hyper-technical fits or better yet, serves!

 

Think about this.....

 

Has the perception and preference of the public improved, when it comes to the sound of music in the car and at home? Or is it a conscious effort on the part of the public and the equipment manufacturers towards "Reality", hence the term High-Fidelity".

 

Does reality in sound, or "High-Fidelity" mean that we wish to listen to an unaltered acoustical event. I don't think such is the case at all. I think the importance of high quality sound is a cultural phenomonen, not a physiological requirement.

 

I think that there are several aspects to the revolution, or phenomonen in the music lover's listening ability and the resultant upgrading of music reproduction equipment. Such facets as; "Taste", "Style", "Fashion", "Asthetic Sensibility", and "Culture".

 

I don't think intelligibility of message is a factor at all, because the quality of intelligibility is present from a cheap car radio to a state-of-the-art sound system. If we were to say that sound quality preferences in the listener are based on realism, then we assume to take on the impossible task of defining realism in sound. In todays music then, we would have to add to that the additional problem of electronic fabrication or manipulation of sounds and music.

 

I think that the modern generation listens to music more than previous generations did. The John Doe of today is a more experienced listener than his father or his grandfather. I would go so far as to say that there are many, many times more critical listeners today than there were only ten years ago.

 

Learning to be a critical listener, while in the early stages depending almost entirely on perception for 'raw' information, is clearly a psychological, social and cultural process. Further, I think it is mainly a cultural process including the evalution of music, sounds and equipment,and then restructuring as the learning progresses.

 

Common meanings, values and experiences, to share with others, create a learning experience that is undeniable. We learn to hear clearly with our ears, and then accurately evaluate what we are hearing with our experiences.

 

The importance, of reproduced sound, lies not in any inherent acoustical value, but in what it signifies to the soul of the listener.

 

Forget about the nuts, bolts, graphs and general dog-doo of the hypertechnical. Think about learning "Critical Listening".

 

I love to use the word "Fashion" to describe subjective reactions to sound quality. Thinking of recorded music in terms of fashion might make one think that the task of critical listening is frivolous and unimportant. You will probably find some people who think of fashion as vulgar and a symbol for the expression of ego.

 

In some individuals that may be true, but self-expression can also be seen as a form of communication and need not be vulgar, frivolous or unimportant. Fashion can also be said to transcend or ignore group barriers.

 

I think emphassis on the modern can be seen in sound equipment advertisements. The desire of consumers to maintain or improve class status is reflected in the frequency with which advertisements position sound products in the most elite classes. One equipment manufacturer will say that their product is stocked by "Only the few dealers that have the expertise and credibility to sell these unique sound systems!".

 

I really think that the true significance of sound quality and musical innovation lies in the human response.

 

There......

 

Bruce Swedien

[Tedster]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

With the following I'm trying to increase my post count.

OH NO! That's how it starts...and then you end up like me...a hopeless post-aholic...

[boosh]

I love it,... I mean I really love it....

It's so funny to hear pro s talk.

Allways talk 'bout analog versus digital.

Allways talk 'bout the real synth versus the plugin version.

 

No one ever,never notices if something is recorded 24/96 digital or on a plain brown analog tape except us.....At least the people I know in Real life.

 

My wife and kid are so happy when they hear Ricky Martin but they turn their heads when I play them Sgt Pepper.

 

I remember three years ago before I stumbled onto this forum. I was happy and enjoyed making music. Everyone who heard my stuff was thrilled. I used every piece of equipment I could lay my hands on and my music just sounded right to me and to others. It had feeling and creativity.

Suddenly I found out about the real audioengineering. I started to read about it and talk about it with pro s.

I learned a lot from reading stuff Craig wrote and the hints people gave me on here but it turned out the bad way.

I used all the hints and tips gave me and people like Dave Reitzas listened to my stuff and encouraged me to go on.

Some people even couldn't believe the stuff I made came from a home-studio.

The bad way is: I am affraid to make music now. I don't make music anymore because I want to enjoy people and make people dance. I make music because I want it to sound perfect. In my opinion I can't make it sound perfect because I need a pro studio and pro-tools,...which I don't have.

I have all these great musicians around me and they're very eager to work with me but as soon as a song is finished I listen to it carefully and I wonder if that bassdrum is allright. Is it eq-d good,... are the female vocals not popping?

What about that snare ??? is it good or does hiphop these dayz need a clap instead of a snare??

Gheezzz I dunno anymore. My muse is gone just because I met the pros....

And that thing about not recording on analog tape but instead recording it digital and than playing it back on analog or recording digital and then using a filter to nake it sound like analog???

efyouseekay man,..are you making this as hard as possible just to get creative guys like me confused?

 

Why not make music for everyone on this earth ,...everyone who enjoys it and not just tje ant-fuckers,...that's how we call nitpicks in Holland.

 

I just decided to funk as I did three years ago and don't care anymore if the bassdrumsample I use is 8 bit or 24 bit.

 

I wanna groove again and make slash create my stuff.(didn't mean to hijack this thread) btw Bruce Swedien, my name is Boosh(real name Boes) just a weird mofo who creates sounds and writes music from Amsterdam Netherlands. I'm not going to bow for ya but I thank you for bringing us the works that you did. I grew up on your productions.Thank you for all you've done. You and the guys you work with are the main reason I love music.

[boosh]

dang that message had a lot of spelling mistakes,..sorry,....don't think Í'm illiterruate I just have thick fingers

[blackfish]

I must say as a young person all too wrapped up in the technology of sound, and the methods of combining technology and imagination to capture the "perfect" sound, that I am completely relieved to see this discussion evolve as it did. To hear some of the industries...the world's...most successful engineers relate that at the root of everything, is still the thing that brought us to music in the first place...emotion. The talks of sound quality and converter technology, advancing methods of recreating nature in the purely electronic domain all center around this topic. The sound of a successful recording depends on your frame of reference, if a recording of a punk band in the garage moves you to an extreme degree, then it is successful...if it is ultra clean James Taylor that evokes the same emotion, who's to say which one is 'better' at being successful? I have been 'learned', and inspired by this thread...I seem to have forgotten that we as recordist-engineer-fader monkey-tweakers are here to capture the performance of the emotions in music, not perform ourselves by mixing the record. Maybe thats the crux of the digital v. Analog debate, which method makes you feel more? Is it lining up snare hits or listening to the drummer drop the ride out of the groove to pick up their beer? I think I know, but I guess i'll find out for sure......Thanks Mr. Swedien, Mr. Anderton and others.

-James

[Bruce Swedien]

Boes and all.......

 

I love this - > "Why not make music for everyone on this earth ,...everyone who enjoys it and not just the ant-fuckers,...that's how we call nitpicks in Holland. I just decided to funk as I did three years ago and don't care anymore if the bass drum sample I use is 8 bit or 24 bit. I wanna groove again"

 

You've got it! You've got it!

 

Brucie the Viking!

[Lee Flier]

Awww booshie I'm sorry to hear you're going through that.

 

The thing is, it's great to learn the technical stuff from people who really know what they're doing... BUT... the point is never to abandon the emotion in service to "perfect sound." The point is always to get the sound that has maximum emotional impact... and that can very well involve doing things "wrong" in terms of fidelity. Oftentimes it does. On the other hand, sometimes bad sound does act as a veil between the musician and audience - the emotional impact doesn't get over because the sound quality isn't as good as it could be.

 

So take all the stuff you read... and just file it away in your brain. If something sounds like it might be a fun experiment to try or might give your current project the "oomph" it needs to make the music fun, then great! If it sounds like something that might help you solve a problem that's been irritating you in your past or present work, then great! Otherwise, just let it go to the bottom of the pile and sink into your subconscious. Some day, you might be working on a song and need a particular kind of sound in order to get it across... and THEN it might jog your memory of some cool tip you heard from Craig or Bruce or somebody. THAT is the value of learning this stuff, not to become a slave to it.

 

The search for "perfect sound" can indeed kill the music itself, and if ANY technical aspect of recording is killing the emotion and creativity, then it has to go!

[fantasticsound]

I agree with your premise, Bruce, but I think you've disregarded Craig's example of the class hearing mechanical reverb in a cathedral. How can one be a critical listener when most people are listening to less than adequate mp3s? Sure, they may be adequate for everyday use (or not), but as a basis for critical listening they are severely lacking.

 

I guess those of us who grew up in the pre-CD era, who benefitted from increasingly better fidelity as records and even cassettes were subject to quality increases through technology are mystified at the state of mp3's that are a step backward in quality. It seemed impossible for the end user to possess a duplicated copy of, say, your mix that rivaled the sound as you heard it in the studio. That is emminently possible today, yet consumers don't seem to care.

 

Music delivery formats have finally reached the same point as furniture, toy and other product manufacturing did in the early days of plastic and wood substitutes. The difference is that the average listener doesn't see the difference the way consumers saw 1950's and '60's plastic furniture, etc. as cheap junk. Unlike the eschewing of plastic that led to vast improvements over the past 4 decades, I don't see a drive for higher quality music formats. All the ones we've come up with have failed to reach a wide audience.

[boosh]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

Boes and all.......

 

I love this - > "Why not make music for everyone on this earth ,...everyone who enjoys it and not just the ant-fuckers,...that's how we call nitpicks in Holland. I just decided to funk as I did three years ago and don't care anymore if the bass drum sample I use is 8 bit or 24 bit. I wanna groove again"

 

You've got it! You've got it!

 

Brucie the Viking!

Thankzz,....It's just how I feel,...Technolegy killed my muse and I want it back again.

I loved recording my band with two sures sm58 plugged into the left and right channel and just get that live - being there in the rehearsingroom- feeling when I listened to it back home.

I love the look on my 11 months old son when I pick up a guitar and play him a song.

I will never forget the look on my 83 years old grandmothers face when I picked up a mic on my wedding and sung sweet home chicago for her life on my wedding( I was drunk and out of tune). But I insisted the whole band was out of tune.

Music needs to hit you in the face and make you groove. No need for perfectionessionally shit.Just emotianally stuff.

Okay,....I'm not proffesional enough. I make great songs but don't record them well. I cold turkied from a bad cocaine addiction and recovered well. Found a cool girl I married,bought a house and a car,...Our creator gave us a cool kiddo!!! Only thing that reminds me off the past are my teeth,...I'm gonna loose those 'cause dentist will cost me $10,000 which I don't have.But I won't ,..I repeat I won't try to smoothe up my music anymore to make it sell,..just because I can't get me a good engineer and recordcompany to finance me.

I'd rather have bad teeth than make no music.

btw,...Billie Jean is not my lover,......

[Anderton]

<>

 

Did you by any chance see my article in the December issue of EQ, "Keeping the Art in the State of the Art?" It explains WHY, from a physiological basis, there's a disconnect between "art" and "technology." But more importantly, it tells you how to get around this disconnect.

 

I think you are spending too much time living in your "left brain" and not enough time in your "right brain." Fix that, and your problem is solved!

 

The whole object, at least for me, is to let the inspiration flow into the recording medium with minimal distractions. THE BETTER YOU KNOW YOUR GEAR, THE LESS LIKELY IT WILL DISTRACT YOU. The analogy I give is playing guitar. When a guitarist plays a D chord, he doesn't think where each finger has to go and on which strings, it's automatic. You should "play" your recording technology the same way. The easiest way to make sure this happens is to use a limited set of really good gear, because then using it becomes second nature and it doesn't get in the way.

[Anderton]

One more thing...I've said so many times in my writing that all that matters is the emotional impact of the music, and that no one listens to a great song and says "Wow! Listen to that mic preamp!"

 

But let me temper that by saying emotional impact is INTENSIFIED with high quality recording and mastering. I liked the music on Peter Gabriel's last album a lot, but couldn't listen to it because I hated the mastering. It became annoying to listen to. So it does matter to me whenever you lose something due to technology...so I want to find out if there's some way to avoid that loss. Hence the original motivation for starting this thread.

[boosh]

That's exactly my problem,,... you know I have a friend who owns a musicstore and whatever software he gets he passes on to me to check it out.

When I pick up a guitar I have no problems but when I try to produce or record a song I start with Reason and end up with guitarrig. I have everything software based what people dream of just like you Craig but it jst doesn't do the trick for me. I need to feel the beat and hold that guitar.

That's where I get lost. I hear music in my head,...Music I know I can create using all the software I have but I don't know the programs well enough to make it happen.

I can wake up with: I wanna have a sample like oohm chock uum a chicka boom,..combined with a choir singing wapchapwap....a sax doing wheeep whpe whpppp and girls doing uh ohhh yuhhhgh ohhhhh. and I know I have the technolegy and musicians to record it but I feel more comfortable recording the same tracks on my own,... multiple voiced,...acapella.

But who's waiting for that? who needs my voice doing all the stuff.

I have the means here but dunno how to use them.

I have all the appz and musicians but don't know how to tell them what to do.

Does this mean I'm a pure solo musician? Does this mean I need to learn how to write and read tabulature or notes? I know how I want it t sound but,............

 

damn If I could only hook my brains up to a machine that mp3s my thoughts,.....

 

Please Mr.Windows,.......

 

Please MP3 my THOUGHTSSSSSSSSS

 

(Gheez that'll make a billionseller CD lol)

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Anderton:

One more thing...I've said so many times in my writing that all that matters is the emotional impact of the music, and that no one listens to a great song and says "Wow! Listen to that mic preamp!"

 

But let me temper that by saying emotional impact is INTENSIFIED with high quality recording and mastering. I liked the music on Peter Gabriel's last album a lot, but couldn't listen to it because I hated the mastering. It became annoying to listen to. So it does matter to me whenever you lose something due to technology...so I want to find out if there's some way to avoid that loss.

Eggzactly. That's always my motivation for talking about this stuff also.

 

One of the more insidious things about some of the digital tools is the excesses they allow. You CAN have everything full scale, have a zillion tracks, have processing on every track. And the loss of fidelity may not be very apparent at any single stage - in fact you might respond very emotionally favorably to any given "neat trick" you can do with this stuff. But you add it all together and with all that processing added up across a bunch of tracks, it suddenly sounds like doo doo.

 

Now one can say "But you don't HAVE to do that just because you're recording digitally" and they're totally correct of course. But, I've heard a lot of major label releases over the past few years where that's obviously going on, and where the people involved ought to know better, and it's painful.

[miroslav]

I've been on a minimalist binge for awhile now...

....having experienced technology overload even going back a few years.

 

And now...I have more gear than ever...BUT...I've learned (learning)...NOT TO USE IT ALL!!!

 

Here's a question...

 

How many of you would be able to reduce your rig down to a couple of mics, pres...one or two FX boxes...and a barebones recording device/medium (tape/disk/whatever you like)...

...and STILL manage to feel comfortable enough to record?

 

No gazillion track DAWs.

No plugins galore on EVERYTHING.

No ability to slice-n-dice every note.

No autocorection.

No loops.

 

scary...ain't it?

 

Boosh...turn all that shit off...

...plug in your guitar...

...hit record...

...and just play.

 

One take...until it's right. No edits.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by miroslav:

Here's a question...

 

How many of you would be able to reduce your rig down to a couple of mics, pres...one or two FX boxes...and a barebones recording device/medium (tape/disk/whatever you like)...

...and STILL manage to feel comfortable enough to record?

 

No gazillion track DAWs.

No plugins galore on EVERYTHING.

No ability to slice-n-dice every note.

No autocorection.

No loops.

Well you've pretty much described my setup.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

Well, digital sound, as it applies to music recording, has made tremendous progress in the past year or two. For instance, with the introduction of high-resolution digital recording at 96 khz - 24 bit, or Sony/Philips DSD technology, the sound of digital recording has improved drastically.

And there are those that say it's all smoke-n-mirrors...

...just so the manufactures can get you to buy new-format players...and the record companies can then re-release everything all over again in another money-making format...

[theblue1]

Originally posted by Anderton:

I made this a separate topic to avoid overloading the other one...

 

I keep thinking back to those seminars we did in Mexico, where you mentioned your aversion to signal processing, but also how you liked to capture to analog tape for its qualities, then transfer to digital to preserve. I made some comment about how tape is basically a signal processor, just a mechanical one.

 

Then I started thinking about all the advice people give for good recordings: mic placement is more important than EQ, a real reverb space trumps digital delay, use tape compression instead of dynamics processors, use room mics for delay instead of delay lines...

 

And it hit me: All those instances are talking about mechanical signal processing! So why is that? My theory is that it doesn't involve converting the actual "air," the signal waveform. And this may be why people like the "sound" of analog as opposed to digital...there's no conversion. Ditto vinyl versus CD. Maybe the idea of converting a waveform into a representation of a waveform is inherently flawed for some reason we don't fully understand. Anyone have comments (not just Bruce)?

Maybe a more trenchant way of framing it might be to suggest that the "mechanical" analogs are continuously variable analogs. Certainly a mechanical analog that was step-based, as digital analogs are would have the same negatives. (And, please, let's not go around about the phrase "digital analog." We've been using "analog" sloppily for so long, many of us have lost track of what it actually means, and, sadly, some dictionaries have even felt the need to add a jargonized definition.)

 

(And, of course, some of the examples you cite, such as using proper mic selection for tonal shaping rather than EQ circuits refer equally to digital as well as non-digital.)

[Bruce Swedien]

fantasticsound.....

 

You missed it.

 

You are assuming that everyone listens to mp.3's. for instance.

 

Does everyone out there know what assumption means?????

 

Bruce Swedien

[theblue1]

Originally posted by Anderton:

Yes, but I think it's pretty much established that nothing beats a real rotating speaker. The issue here is whether mechanical processing is always, or at least almost always, preferable to a process that requires conversion.

Craig

 

I can't help but thinking at least part of the issue -- at least in some of the examples you cited -- here is reality versus simulation.

 

I think a real instrument in a real physical environment is always going to sound a lot more real than any kind of simulation, whether it's an analog or digital recording using a spring reverb, a plate, a chamber or a digital reverb.

 

Now, does a spring reverb sound better than a digital reverb?

 

Um...

 

Maybe for surf guitar -- but definitely not for vox, etc.

 

And, though I grew up in the "analog" world of recording and spent the better part of my youth (until I discovered girls, anyhow) in a high-end listening room listening to systems that were the (dollar) equivalent of $20K to $40K systems today -- I have yet to hear a recording on any system that sounds like a real string quartet or orchestra.

[Bruce Swedien]

Craig.....

 

Well said...

 

"let me temper that by saying emotional impact is INTENSIFIED with high quality recording and mastering. I liked the music on Peter Gabriel's last album a lot, but couldn't listen to it because I hated the mastering. It became annoying to listen to. So it does matter to me whenever you lose something due to technology...so I want to find out if there's some way to avoid that loss. Hence the original motivation for starting this thread."

 

I think the best way to "avoid that loss" would be to cultivate good taste! To me, the best way would be through "Critical Listening" . Start by learning what good music sounds like in a good acoustical situation.

 

Brucie the Viking!

[theblue1]

Originally posted by miroslav:

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

Well, digital sound, as it applies to music recording, has made tremendous progress in the past year or two. For instance, with the introduction of high-resolution digital recording at 96 khz - 24 bit, or Sony/Philips DSD technology, the sound of digital recording has improved drastically.

And there are those that say it's all smoke-n-mirrors...

...just so the manufactures can get you to buy new-format players...and the record companies can then re-release everything all over again in another money-making format...

I'll be among the first to echo that. I've seen the industry try to crank more money out of consumers over and over again in my rough half-century of paying attention to this stuff (starting when a neighbor with an early tape machine, one of those old Wollensacks, ambushed me singing Mary Had a Little Lamb).

 

For every successful paradigm shift like the move to stereo or CD, there've been dozens of hack attempts like 8 track cartridges, real quad, matrix quad, digital compact cassette (remember that one?), VHS-HiFi, Mini-Disk, SACD, and on and on.

 

Look -- they sent a big message when they started hyping the 96 kHz sample rate -- a sample rate that, to provide optimal sound, would force a resampling of all extant media -- and leave material recorded orginally at 44.1 (or multiples thereof) at the mercy of 'ragged' sample remapping. If all they wanted was to advance the state of the industry, they would have hyped 88.2 and 176.4 instead, y'know?

[DJDM]

Originally posted by miroslav:

I've been on a minimalist binge for awhile now...

....having experienced technology overload even going back a few years.

 

And now...I have more gear than ever...BUT...I've learned (learning)...NOT TO USE IT ALL!!!

 

Here's a question...

 

How many of you would be able to reduce your rig down to a couple of mics, pres...one or two FX boxes...and a barebones recording device/medium (tape/disk/whatever you like)...

...and STILL manage to feel comfortable enough to record?

 

No gazillion track DAWs.

No plugins galore on EVERYTHING.

No ability to slice-n-dice every note.

No autocorection.

No loops.

 

scary...ain't it?

 

Boosh...turn all that shit off...

...plug in your guitar...

...hit record...

...and just play.

 

One take...until it's right. No edits.

Miroslav your post got me to thinking... I spent the first seven or so years of my musical life playing classical trumpet and later singing jazz and Broadway stuff in and out of school. One note at a time for me in both categories. Then when I started playing piano and later building a synth studio it was a wonderful revelation to be able to add harmony and a lot more to the arrangements of my ideas.

 

My thought was "do I miss that solo instrument environment?" My answer is "not exactly".

 

I love being able to work with a multitude of instruments and whatnot to create sounds and music. It really turns my crank. But am I missing anything because I work that way? Not really because I just picture my studio as one big voice or trumpet if you will.

 

In the end I am trying to express something with my work and my studio in its entirety is the instrument. Perhaps not starting out with all of the bells and whistles has been a good thing for me. The development has been very organic in that way.

 

In fact I realized in mulling your question over that I tend to approach my studio work in exactly the same way one would learn an instrument. Piece by piece I built a hardware facility that eventually grew to a pretty respectable 16 track midi and mic based system by the early nineties. I only bought what I needed and would work very hard to maximize and learn about every nook and cranny in a given piece of equipment because I had to earn every dollar that paid for it by waiting tables.

 

When I began to switch over to software based systems in 1999 I approached it much the same way. To this day I still basically use four pieces of software that I picked up in 1999-2001 for everything. One of them is even a closed system. My controller keyboard is still the same D-50 that I bought in 1989. I have one stereo mic preamp and an AKG 414 that I picked up in 1990. My computer is very homemade.

I would invest in other software if I thought I needed it but I simply don't and so many times people seem to exert a lot of energy on new purchases or GAS and loose their focus. I prefer to stay focused and use that momentum to push my ideas out the door.

 

I worked for many happy years with only trumpet or voice then only borrowed pianos that I would compose on and then with a studio. So I have already pared my system down to the barest nub. My vision for my music is my distillation in its simplest form. Everything else is extraneous. The current incarnation of expression with a studio allows me to reach the most people. It allows me the most fun I've ever had musically as well as intellectually and gives me the richest feedback from the most people. For now I'll stick with it.

 

Thanks again for the good question Miroslav.

[Bruce Swedien]

The words below are very interesting.....

(but way off the mark - At least My Mark!)

 

I can't help but thinking at least part of the issue -- at least in some of the examples you cited -- here is reality versus simulation.

 

I think a real instrument in a real physical environment is always going to sound a lot more real than any kind of simulation, whether it's an analog or digital recording using a spring reverb, a plate, a chamber or a digital reverb.

 

Now, does a spring reverb sound better than a digital reverb?

 

"Does a spring reverb sound better than a digital reverb? " - (give me a break!) All I can say to that is - TO WHO??? (no) TO WHOM??? Plus - WHO CARES!!!!

 

I think things became much clearer to me when I realized how important it is to conceptualize my own idea of what the Stereo Space actually is. In other words, the space that our sound-field occupies between the speakers.

 

First, I try to think of the "Stereo Space" as a piece of musical reality. Once we have acquired that concept, we can conversely, also think of the "Stereo Space" as a piece of musical fantasy. Whether or not it could exist in nature, or in a natural acoustical environment, is irrelevant. HEAR THAT - IRRELEVANT!!!

 

Most of the "Stereo Spaces" in my recordings, began their life in my imagination...

 

I like to think of my stereo sound-field as a Sonic Sculpture...

 

I always try to make my stereo sound-field far more than merely two-channel mono. In other words, I always try to make my stereo sound-field multi-dimensional, not merely left, center and right. For me to be satisfied with a sound-field, it must have the proportions of left, center, right and depth.

 

Since the middle 1960s I think my philosphical approach to using the "Stereo Space", has been to take the listener into a New Reality that did not, or could not, exist in a real life acoustical environment. This New Reality, of course, existed only in my own imagination. What I mean is, that before what I call The Recording Revolution, our efforts were directed towards presenting our recorded music to the listener in what amounted to an essentially unaltered, acoustical event. A little Slice of Life, musically speaking.(This Recording Revolution took place from 1950 through 1970)

 

I'm trying to steer you folks in a new dirrection....

 

Bruce Swedien

[boosh]

Steer us Bruce,.yeah Steer us Pahleaseee

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Anderton:

Did you by any chance see my article in the December issue of EQ, "Keeping the Art in the State of the Art?" It explains WHY, from a physiological basis, there's a disconnect between "art" and "technology." But more importantly, it tells you how to get around this disconnect.

Craig,

 

I read that article just yesterday, and it was fantastic. Very, very well done, and I recommend it to all as required reading.

 

Overall I found the December EQ was a strong issue.

[Philip OKeefe]

Here's something worthwhile to do - Try to figure out a way to get young people, that are interested in recording music, to experience and fall in love with the emotion of good music.

 

One thing I've done a few times is to sponsor a field trip for jr and sr high school kids to the studio... we get to talk about how math, physics and geometry are important to music production (which keeps the teachers and principals happy), but also about how music moves and inspires people (which makes me and the kids happy). WHo knows? Maybe it will inspire some kid to consider a musical life.

 

It's always been personally rewarding for me, and we usually try to do some tracks with the kids while they're here and send 'em home with a CD. I highly recommend it!