ABSOLUTE SOUND OR ABSOLUTE EASE?

[Max Ventura]

Here's something I argue often about with fellow producers/musicians:

 

Is it ultimately better to have (and pay for) equipment that supposedly will deliver extremely high standards of sound quality and definition, or is it better to employ equipment that you feel more comfortable with, and that allow you extremely rapid and effective tweaking and ease of use?

 

In other words, do you like better to sweat over manuals and programming (not mentioning forking over the hay) in order to have a nearly perfect result employing high-specs material, or do you prefer to work with simple, easy-to-operate, well-tried but possibly more humble devices?

 

In short:

-expensive analog or bargain digital?

-24 bits/96 Khz resolution at all costs or good old 16/44? (with 20/48 as backup option, maybe).

-Fender Twin Blackface '63 or Pod?

-Neve/SSL consoles or Mackie?

 

 

As for me, I'll prefer ease of use and realtime controls over absolute sound quality at any given time, in any situation.

 

I do acknowledge that some equipment does sound deeper and more defined than other, and possibly can do more stuff, but I prefer to work and produce rapidly and effectively, and having quick access to sounds and sound modification, and leave to the mixing stage any issue over sound definition.

 

I also believe that in most cases, the public will never notice such differences in sound.

 

However, please speak on.

[Tedster]

I'm no answer dude here, but it seems like the situation dictates the means. Better to use a blackface than a POD....sometimes. Is the blackface gonna give you hum problems that would be quickly eliminated by using the POD, for instance? What are you trying to achieve? This, to me, gets into the realm of "A bad (well, let's just say perhaps not quite as precise) recording of good music is still better than a good recording of bad music". But, of course, a good recording of good music is best.

 

Then, there's the bit about some folks live to learn new stuff. Some folks just wanna play. Which one is which?

[Lee Flier]

Well, complexity of programming and such doesn't necessarily lead to good sound. Neither does expense. There are some relatively cheap pieces of gear that still sound awfully good, and where the benefits of buying something more expensive or complicated would be negligible in your particular situation.

 

I say go with whatever brings out the best in you as a performer. If you can't get inspired because you feel like the gear isn't happening, you need different gear. Different, again, doesn't necessarily mean more expensive or complicated. The SOUND of it should be the primary consideration.

 

As for the "convenience" factor, people seem to have varying degrees of tolerance for that too. I don't consider it too much fun messing around with different programming configurations on a digital system, for example, but I have infinite patience for playing with different mic placements because the results are very audible to me. I will ALWAYS take the trouble to record live drums rather than use a machine, because drum machines are extremely uninspiring to me. Lots of people don't have that priority because maybe their priority is the composition part. And, although I use a POD for working out arrangements and effects, when I'm ready for that "final take" I will always take the trouble to mic up an amp (and yes I did invest in great sounding vintage amps), because it sounds better and is more inspiring to me.

 

In other words, I never sacrifice sound for the sake of convenience. If I spend half a day getting a drum sound and I'm no longer in the frame of mind to be a performer, I leave everything set up until the next day and then start fresh without having to worry about getting sounds at all 'cause it's done.

 

And these days, there's little excuse for being able to get a very good sound for not a lot of money. Maybe not as good as the best most expensive gear, but if you have good ears and are willing to experiment, close enough. Craig made the point on another thread that it's worth spending some time messing with different permutations on say, digital systems, and finding sounds that work for you and then saving those into a sound library that you can call up again easily. It's a headache for a few weeks or months, but easy after that. I'm in that stage now with my new Yamaha AW4416. If I'd tried to just start tracking with it right out of the box, I don't think I'd be very happy with it because I don't yet know its capabilities and what makes it sound good or bad. Now I'm learning, and I'm saving various reverb settings and so forth that work for me, so I've got a good palette that suits me and that I can recall easily.

 

That said, it always helps to have a couple of decent pieces of outboard gear that you can always rely on... plug 'em in, turn 'em on, tweak a knob or two and they sound good. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif I feel that way about my JoeMeek VC3Q channels - they couldn't be easier to use and they sound the way I want most of the time. So hey, if you find something pretty cheap (or have the money for a couple pieces of expensive gear) which will give you a sound that you know you always like with little effort, go for it!

 

Other decisions I have made: 16 bit digital isn't good enough for my ears, but 24 bit is plenty good and the expense not much. And there are lots of price points between a Mackie desk and a Neve or SSL! I do have a little Mackie (mainly for my PA system), but if I were buying a console for my home studio I'd go with an Allen & Heath for not much more or, a step up the price ladder, a Soundcraft. If you can't get good sounds with those, it ain't the equipment's fault. Many would say the same about the O2R on the digital side.

 

So there are definitely good compromises between great sound and convenience or expense.

 

--Lee

 

 

[This message has been edited by Lee Flier (edited 12-16-2000).]

[Anderton]

It's simple for me: I use gear that I like to use. Some of it is very high-quality, some of it low-fi and low-cost. But generally, due to financial constraints, I gravitate toward more middle-of-the-road gear...and it sounds just fine. Of course, if I was recording a symphony orchestra, it would be a different story.

[Curve Dominant]

Come stai Massimo

 

My view is: absolute ease when developing la musica ideas, absolute sound when presenting those ideas to market.

 

Grazie tante for your invite. I may take you up on that. I can sing, play guitar, bass, dance, play percussion, entertain. And I can cook, too.

 

Chi vediammo...

[Max Ventura]

Yeah Curve, anytime.

I'll have you lay some tracks then, 'cause it can get pretty stale sometimes for me, working alone.

Ciao.

[Fletcher]

Originally posted by argomax:

I also believe that in most cases, the public will never notice such differences in sound.

 

We all have our own unique techniques and methods. I know I'll have different opinions than Massenburg, or Cherney and especially Roger about what's cool and whats 'stool'...but that doesn't change one thing.

 

That 'thing' being that it doesn't matter that the "public will never notice the difference in sound"...they actually will, they just won't be able to put their finger on it, the fact remains WE'RE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO CARE!!!! That's our job, it's what most of us are grossly underpaid to do...care.

 

Now, the tools you feel comfortable using to get your work done are completely your decision. The tools I use to get my work done are my decision. Neither decisions are right nor wrong, there is nothing 'black and white' in this entire industry. It's feelings, interpretations, ideas, creative outlet.

 

However, as an engineer, it's my job to sweat my balls off, work my hardest, strive to achieve *the artist's vision*. Sound quality, be it 'Hi-Fi'; 'Lo-Fi'; whatever are all a part of that. Blowing off the available tones and textures because of *any* hardware prejudice is just plain stupid.

 

There are some pieces of equipment that are indeed so difficult to operate, they impede the flow of a session, there are some pieces of equipment that alter the flow of a session. I know I for one won't work on SSL 9000j's. Operationally, I find the computer system a pain in my ass. Tonally, they're OK, nothing to jump up and down about, and frankly most of the rooms where they're installed are a bit sterile for my taste.

 

On the other hand, I find it's probably easier to get butter from a Bull than audio out of a Mackie. Those no headroom, phase shifty little pieces of snot have probably done more to piss me off in a studio than guitar player's girlfriends...nice writing tool, terrible recording device.

 

As for the rest of it...what ever's appropriate. I still [hey, I'm old, gimm a break here] use "Waiting For Columbus" and "Exile On Main St" as my watermarks...'Columbus' having the fullest/richest audio I've ever experienced, 'Exile' having the most "appropriate" audio that ever supported a musical statement.

 

YMMV....

 

-----

 

Fletcher

Mercenary Audio http://www.mercenary.com

[alphajerk]

first of all, Mackie sucks dick. their digital board certainly isnt easy to use, and their analog boards while "easy" to use makes for a bitch of a mix to deal with. so is it easier? not a chance.

 

i spent some good amount of $$$ on some nice pre's and they are incredibly easy to use, my API's have 1 knob and 4 buttons, & my newest addition, the Crane Song Flamingo, has 2 knobs and 2 switches per channel. THOSE are EASY to use AND EASY to mix. and the sound is ABSOLUTEly fuckin awesome.

 

i find with cheaper gear, its a pain in the ass more than "easy" to use. my stompboxes for guitar are extremely easy to use and a amp is even easier so a POD is just a pain in my ass and worthless [it sounds like shit] and im not about to fuck around with one and do the "real" take later, ALL takes are the real take.

 

it really comes down to abusing each TOOL you have in your arsenal. i dont go buy a bunch of shit, i buy one thing and learn it WELL. if it still doesnt suit my needs sonically, i dont use it. but knowing how and when to use something is the entire key to unlocking all the potential.

 

also VINTAGE does NOT equal BETTER either. there are some older stuff that does sound great but there is some new stuff that sounds great also.

[Lee Flier]

Pretty much agree with ya on most of your points alpha. About the POD, I am not wild about the sound of it either. Only trouble is that I like to work on songwriting and arrangements late at night when cranking up an amp would not be conducive. So that's when I use it.

 

Also, I guess there's a difference in our philosophies when you say "every take is a real take". I'm kinda from the Keith Richards school here - I believe that you don't really know a song inside and out until you've played it more times than anybody else would be able to stand it. I can pretty much bank on the fact that I'm not going to be happy with an overdub until I've done a ridiculous number of takes. In fact, when I was doing analog I used to do a couple of rough mixes down to a 4-track cassette and work up guitar parts that way to avoid wearing out the multitrack tape (hey Fletcher, didn't Jimmy Miller used to get really pissed off at Keith for doing that?).

 

'Course there are lots of people who get things in a few takes and that's cool. I just find personally that I can come up with something better if I keep going... and going.

 

And yeah I agree, vintage/non vintage is not a measure of quality. I have never found a newer guitar amp that I liked, but there's plenty of new recording equipment that I agree sounds great. As for cheap/expensive, well some gear is a pain in the ass and some ain't, and I haven't found cheaper gear to be generally any more or less of a pain than expensive gear, it just depends what it is.

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 12-22-2000 at 09:53 AM

[alphajerk]

there's times when playing it over and over makes it better but it can also make it stale and boring when the first takes sound magical. i dont want to lose the magic because of a crappy piece of equipment like the pod being used. check out those powersoaks for late night tones. they have been working for me LATEly till the sun comes up.

[John Worthington]

I like my POD just fine. I just don't like the patches that came with it. Some time with the computer and I've got some stuff that sounds just fine. Same with synths and drum machines. You can't rely on the canned sounds built in to work well for much of anything. They're designed to sound good in a music store, not in a mix.

 

It all depends on the room, mics, and guitarist. I've heard a lot of stuff come out of the POD that was great compared to some sorry-ass amp that the guitarist insists on using because this idol posed next to it in a magazine.

 

jw

[Anderton]

>>'Exile' having the most "appropriate" audio that ever supported a musical statement.<<

 

In total agreement there, glad you brought it up.

[Max Ventura]

Originally posted by Fletcher@mercenary.com:

There are some pieces of equipment that are indeed so difficult to operate, they impede the flow of a session, there are some pieces of equipment that alter the flow of a session.

 

Well said. That was my whole point.

For example, my situation: I am a dealer, and in the back I've got a medium sized studio suited mostly for electronic tracking - no live room for now ;

I often use what I have in store at the moment on demo, and I have tried several OS and internal architectures from several manufacturers. At this point I have kinda made up my mind on what's gonna go well with the flow of my work and my studio, and what won't.

Digital mixer, for instance: as much as I love the scene recall possibilities, I just need to reach for the real, proper knobs when listening back. I cannot do with jumping menus. Total recall on large analog boards? I am not at that budget point yet.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

there's times when playing it over and over makes it better but it can also make it stale and boring when the first takes sound magical. i dont want to lose the magic because of a crappy piece of equipment like the pod being used.

 

That all depends on how easily the player in question becomes bored. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif I don't get bored easily. Thus, playing the same 3 chords for 25+ years hasn't lost its magic for me yet. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif So, certainly I don't lose my magic over many takes! I realize everybody is different and however you work best is what you need to cater to.

 

check out those powersoaks for late night tones. they have been working for me LATEly till the sun comes up.

 

Well I am interested in the power soak idea for live gigs at small clubs, but frankly I am most inspired when my amp is on 6 or 7 at full power. It gives me that extra dose of magic for those final takes.

 

--Lee

[Anderton]

>>Digital mixer, for instance: as much as I love the scene recall possibilities, I just need to reach for the real, proper knobs when listening back. I cannot do with jumping menus. <<

 

I've found that adding a digital mixer to my setup actually made the flow a lot smoother (I'm using a DA7, which admittedly has a very smooth interface). It's not just the scene recall options, though that's nice, but the ease of routing, no need to have a patch bay, etc.

 

You really might want to check out my article in the December EQ on "The Art of Simplification," where I talk about all the things I've done in my studio to improve the flow and make recording more fun.

[Max Ventura]

Craig-

I've got the issue, I must have overlooked your article, which is strange because, unless you're talking software, I always read them.

However, I have a good experience with digital mixers, and at this point I decided that I really prefer to work with analog ones when mixing. I do miss the recall, but until they make a knobs-riddled BUDGET digital mixer, I am not for them anymore. Italian company LEM (GeneralMusic) did one, the Falcon, but it's more for live than studio use, and it's just 12 channels.

 

As far as synths, I want to bring up an example:

I use the Yamaha CS1-X and Roland JP-8000 as my main (and only) source of electronic-type sounds, including Minimoog tones, TB-303 squelches, mello-strings and so on.

I could use the Korg Z-1 instead, or the Virus, or other, famous machine that I also have in my store, but I never even turn them on anymore.

The sounds provided by the Yamaha and the Roland are more than adequate for any ear, and you can warp and reshape any sound to achieve what you want, in virtually no time, thanks to very straight-forward interfaces. Those two machines really go with the flow of my work.

I aknowledge that, ideally, the Z-1 and the Virus can sound better and do more stuff than the CS-1X and JP8080, but I really find them hostile, and awkward, and riddled with stuff I'll never use (the Z-1) or routing possibilities that totally miss the point (the Virus) so that make music seems actually an extraneous matter to them. That's what I think.

[Anderton]

>>The sounds provided by the Yamaha and the Roland are more than adequate for any ear, and you can warp and reshape any sound to achieve what you want, in virtually no time, thanks to very straight-forward interfaces. Those two machines really go with the flow of my work.

<<

That's why I still use a DPM3, TS-10, and ASR-X Pro. I know the interfaces so well I can come up with pretty much any sound I want.

 

But there's an interesting side to this. The instruments you mention, like the Z1, are very good for suggesting sounds. In other words, you play for a bit, and you come up with something you haven't heard before, even though it may have taken you a fair amount of time. But if I already know what type of sound I want to hear, then it's soooo much easier to go to an instrument with a very familiar interface, and just program!

[Reitzas]

I think spending too much of someone elses time getting "the right sound" over "the right performance" is inappropriate use of time. I think spending countless hours of my own time refining a sound with any and all available tools of this industry is time well spent. It boggles my mind as an engineer in the 21rst century the amount of technology I have at my fingertips to make music (yes music) without solely relying on capturing the best performance at the same time as the best sound.

 

Yesterday I was 24/96, last week I was analog, and today I was 16/44.1 and it really didnt make one bit of difference to the final result (no pun intended). Every situation Im in dictates its requirements i.e.; budget, availability, tastes, location, timing, functionality etc.. and I must be willing to take whatever path necessary to produce a final result that I can be proud of.

 

Bottom line is in learning and continually developing musical tastes and technical talents to be able to use any and every available format, synth, plug-in, amp, instrument, speaker, microphone, converter etc.. TO CREATE. You decide what your definition of "to create" is and Ill decide what my definition of "to create" is and hopefully well all be able to share our creations with each other.

 

Peace and health to you all,

Dave Reitzas

[Anderton]

>>Yesterday I was 24/96, last week I was analog, and today I was 16/44.1 and it really didnt make one bit of difference to the final result (no pun intended). <<

 

Amen, brother. Wisdom for the new year!!

May all your projects go platinum...with an attitude like that, they probably will http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Reitzas]

Thanks for the kind words Craig. Wishing all the best to you in the coming year.

Dave Reitzas