DAWs

[Emma]

Do you feel that DAWs have reduced the overall time that you spend on recording and producing music?

[Gus Lozada]

Reduced the time and improved the way I work. Absolutely.

[philbo_Tangent]

Your poll questions are badly constructed. Yes, I do spemd more overall time recording, because my life has afforded me the opportunity to do so. BUT, I turn out 3 times as much finished music per day than I did with tape. I feel DAW human interfaces are MUCH easier than those for tape, so I had to answer No (they are not AS EASY). Sorry to nit-pick, but the responses you provided did not allow me to express my results for you...

[not Cereal]

yes, poor selection of answers to good questions. you didnt say whether if you could hear a difference if the difference was for the better or the worse, or not better or worse. i think they sound different than analog or digital tape, but not better or worse. definately alsihad and DP sound better than a da88 or 16bit adat IMNSFHO. one can argue about whether daws sound better than analog, i have heard analog sound better and worse. it depends. [coaster thumbs nose and says"nyaa"]

[Emma]

Yes I can see you point that I haven’t specified enough. Sorry about this but unfortunately when constructing the poll I found that there are very few characters allowed for each question, and I couldn’t go into as much detail as I wanted. I have already got quite a lot of replies to a questionnaire that I constructed a while ago that aimed to gather experiences and opinions rather than "yes" "no" answers. It is for this reason I am keen to get “yes” and “no” type answers for a few of my questions so I can use them as statistics, as it is hard to quantify opinions. If you would like to tell me more about your thoughts on DAWs I would be happy to send you a copy of the questionnaire. However maybe a better way for me to find out about this (rather than the poll) would be if I posed the questions in a post where I could elaborate further. Emma :idea:

[Emma]

Thinking about it is there anyway I could add an attachment to a post in this forum? :thu:

[Chip McDonald]

The only good response to that would be "it has improved the *quality* of the time I spend recording and producing music. maktub

[gtrmac]

I tried to answer to reflect what I [i]thought[/i] was the intent of the questions. In that regard the DAW has reduced the time that is needed for me to finish a production equivalent to a production that I used to do in an analog studio. I can only say this after having spent three years becoming familiar with the DAW software that I use. I think that the biggest issue to me is that I can produce stuff in my spare room at home that is getting close to what I needed a multimillion dollar studio for about a decade ago. And I probably have under $10,000 invested, not including my guitars and amps, which I had before anyway. Of course YMMV greatly. I have experience and training in studio technology coming into this. It doesn't occur to many musicians that producing music on a DAW entails a lot of engineering and producer skills. So a lot of people get lost in the maze of possibilities that a "virtual studio" offers. Of course they would be in the same boat or worse if they had the keys to The Hit Factory. But the hype and marketing of the software companies leave this part out, allwing many to believe that the software will make the music for them. This is partly true with programs like Acid too. It's easy to get some loops going and throw a rap on there. Sure it's music by definition but I personally have a regard for skill and craft not to mention originality. But I'm really rambling now! :bor:

[Emma]

Thanks again for all your comments, they are good food for thought. As regards the quality of time that is certainly an important factor. The way that I am tackling this project is to basically look in one chapter if DAWs has improved efficiency and in another to look if it has changed the sound of the final product, and how (for better or for worse). So far my research seems to indicate that although the DAW has indeed made some processes quicker (who could deny that editing on a DAW is easier than on tape), it has prolonged others. Infact so far my research seems to point to the fact that overall the process now takes longer. This is not because anything takes longer on a DAW but because there are lots more options (some being impossible without a DAW). Also I think "option paralysis" plays a part in increasing time. There are so many options some times it is hard to know where to begin. I have also been told by people that they feel that the DAW temps them into ammending things that really don't need to be fixed, i.e now we can edit with our eyes and not just our ears, but in some cases we we edit things that cannot be heard just for the sake of it. What are your thoughts on this do you tend to agree? Thanks again, Emma. :cool:

[Tedster]

DAWs are easier once you've gotten over the learning curve. For those who were brought up with tape, it seems more intuitive, whereas for computer dummies (like me) sitting down and figuring out how to use all of that DAW power can be a daunting task.

[Emma]

Yeah I would think that it is very hard to get into computer programmes after being used to more traditional methods of recording. What is interesting though is that once where it would take somebody a substantial amount of time to learn about recording technology, all they need to do now is learn a programme. If they are computer literate anyway I would imagine that it is much less daunting to learn a computer programme than understand and entire studio full of “flashing lights” and “unknown objects”. I would imagine that someone who was computer literate could get to grips with a recording software programme in matter of weeks, or even days! However – I am of course not suggesting that their work would be any great standard, just that they would “technically” be capable of recording and editing a song – something that would have taken a very long time for someone to learn before the DAW. I have been considering if this has resulted in a loss of quality in production standards. Are people now being employed for there computer skills rather than their creative skills?

[Tedster]

Point well taken, Mrs. Peel, but, bear in mind that some DAW owners use a lot of the old fashioned "blinking lights" too...at least from my understanding, unless they go the plug-in route. And like I said, yes, the DAW is easier to use in the long run. But a lot of ol' dawgs just won't give in to the new tricks. BTW...how are things in Beatletown?

[Emma]

Thanks for the input :) Yeah I agree, and I don't think many professionals do rely completely on DAWs. Apart from the hobbyists my research seems to indicate that most people producing music for commercial purposes still use some out board gear, and of course a physical mixer. That's something else that I have been looking at "the usability of the DAW", and the way people have to manipulate parameters. Most DAW software is designed around the appearance of more traditional equipment, i.e. the desk mimicking a traditional console, and many software pluggins mimicking their hardware counterparts. However the way we need to interact with the equipment is different. A pan pot is a rotary tool yet on a DAW we edit it with a linier mouse. On a traditional desk we can use all of our ten fingers but on a computer we can only use one mouse. I feel that all of these things are limitations and I have been considering whether designing software to appear like traditional hardware gear is a good idea. Although it will make it easier for people familiar with traditional gear to get to grips with a DAW is the design a good thing in the long run? Should the DAWs designers rethink the design so that the user interface is created with a PC user in mind. I am not too sure - but I have read a lot of articles in which people call for the redesign of DAW software. Of course I am aware that there are many hardware consoles that can be used along side DAWs so that they can be used more like a traditional desk, but are these the only things that could be done to make mixing in a DAW more ergonomic? Yep I am in Liverpool finishing of this dissertation for my sound tech degree. Liverpool is great - have you been much before? However I do think I will be leaving the city when I finish as there isn't a great amount of work here and I fancy a change tbh. Thanks again, Emma

[Mats Olsson.]

[quote]Originally posted by Emma: [b]Yeah I would think that it is very hard to get into computer programmes after being used to more traditional methods of recording. What is interesting though is that once where it would take somebody a substantial amount of time to learn about recording technology, all they need to do now is learn a programme. skills rather than their creative skills? [/b][/quote]Emma, I disagree completely. To learn and master the craft of audio recording well is not an easy task, not something you can do by reading a book or attending seminars. It is more like learning to play instruments, there are so many variation/components to it. Any kid can figure out how to play a note on a piano, but to play music takes practice, knowledge and experience. Recording gear, hardware or software, is the tool designed to do a particular job. Hardware tools often help the user to do only one or a few jobs properly, therefore you will need plenty of hardware tools to craft a finished recording. Software tools on the other hand are often able to do multiple tasks, more like a toolbox or an almost complete workshop. Software still depend on hardware to be of any use in the music production enviroment: microphones, cables, microphone preamps and some more bare neccessities (sp?). We must not forget such things as the rooms (for recording and monitoring/mixing) are important parts of the equation, learning how to work in a room involves knowledge of acoustics and how a particular microphone behaves in regards to the room and the sound source. Switching from "old school" recording to "new school" is probably way easier than starting from scratch with digital. Sure, it is really easy to set up a studio these days but to make good recordings, a pair of trained ears and plenty of experience will still the most valuable assets. The accessability of computers and software has fooled a lot of folks into believing that buying a hammer is all it takes to become a carpenter. [b]Back to your original question of how/if DAW's save time:[/b] Theoretically, yes. In the old day days when a song was composed and arranged and pre-produced, none of what might have been recorded prior to the final recording was often of sub-standard sonic quality. Recording had to be done from the ground up in the studio, today there is more crossing of borders so to speak. On the other hand, today we can finely adjust (ruin?) a recording to perfection - a process that can take a lot of time. Minor adjustment of every beat of the snare in a song is not uncommon these days. Making comps out of hundreds of vocal takes is also possible. Because of the human nature, if we have options we tend to use them. Some great old hits was often done in an afternoon. This is still possible. But I feel that more and more time is spent on sucking the life out of recordings. This is not a new trend, it started when splicing & overdubbing became possible (decades ago). When DAW's appeared the trend of utilizing "studio tricks" turned into an avalanche. However, some people [i]are[/i] using DAW's to speed up the process. I wish it was more common than I believe it is. (Sorry for the long post.) /Mats

[Emma]

Thanks for your help. However I thought we were in agreement. As in my post I wrote that people could now use the technology with very little training and I was not commenting on the results of that they would produce. I am in complete agreement that music production is a craft and this is almost part of my arguemnt - people may have the technical knowledge but not the craftmaship or skill and could this result in a lower quailty of music production? I have been looking at this area a bit during my research and I found that professionals from many different industries felt this way. I found a very interesting chapter in a book where a visual editor was complaining that computers had resulted in lower quality productions, due to people being employed due to their computer skills rather than their craftmanship. The point you made about production having declined before DAWs was very interesting and it's certainly something I will look into. Do you feel that the more technological options we have the less we work on the production side of things? Do you think that there is too much of a tendency to fix in the mix? Several people that I have interviewed felt that functions such as quantise and auto tune had sucked the soul out of many productions, do you think this too? Thanks, Emma

[Mats Olsson.]

[quote]Originally posted by Emma: [b] The point you made about production having declined before DAWs was very interesting and it's certainly something I will look into.[/b][/quote]I don't believe that splicing, overdubbing and editing have led to a decline of musical quality in recordings. Poor judgement from the producer and (this is more common than you can imagine) the record label is the culprit here. Fantastic ideas/arrangements that was not previously possible to record could now be realised (late Beatles, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, Mike Oldfield to name just a few classic examples of fine old-school studio wizzardry) [quote][b] Do you feel that the more technological options we have the less we work on the production side of things?[/b][/quote]On less successful records, yes. Most recordings that have a life-span of more than a few weeks are often very well crafted in all areas - lots of hard work. [quote][b]Do you think that there is too much of a tendency to fix in the mix?[/b][/quote]When there was only 16 or 24 tracks available and no undo options we had to decide instantly wether to keep or loose a take. This forced us to not postpone decicions (for better or worse). Having access to almost unlimited amounts of virtual tracks is a blessing and a curse. [quote][b] Several people that I have interviewed felt that functions such as quantise and auto tune had sucked the soul out of many productions, do you think this too?[/b][/quote]These tools are good for fixing the occasional odd or stray note, if you use them on everything you loose the music. There is also a lot more trickery going on in the live scene now - promotors & agents have fooled many artists into believing that the audience want the show to sound [i]exactly[/i] like the CD. Milli Vanilli didn't con the audience much compared to what Britney and her likes are doing. This is not exclusive to music. In TV they have cameras that make people look younger (look it up - this is true!). In advertising and fashion they use PhotoShop and several plugins to "perfect" the look of humans. In politics they sometimes use lots of smoke & mirrors to con the public. And it is [i]all[/i] about the money. The concept of art is not very high on the agenda anymore. /Mats

[Emma]

Thanks for answering my questions - it was very kind of you and you have made some great points :) As for the camera thing - WHERE CAN I GET ONE??? ;) Emma

[Emma]

Is there any way I can view the results of my poll without voting myself? Thanks, Emma

[Anon-a-Monster]

[quote]Originally posted by gtrmac: [b]This is partly true with programs like Acid too. It's easy to get some loops going and throw a rap on there. Sure it's music by definition but I personally have a regard for skill and craft not to mention originality.[/b][/quote]Are you saying if someone uses loops or Acid that there isn't skill and craft involved? Here are 3 remixes I have done using Acid of the same vocal performance. Let me know, in your opinion, whether there is or isn't skill and craft being employed. [url=http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?songs=150138&T=9729]Remixex in WMA format[/url]

[Emma]

I think programs such as Acid can be used to produce some really great work - but it's not the program that have the creativity it's the operater.

[Chaz]

I could not answer the questions either because they are too vague for me. In some ways DAWS are great and in other ways they are not as good as analog. I am sure if tracking were A/B'd on both analog and DAW, there would be an edge leaning toward the analog side of it. Don't get me wrong....DAWs have come a long ways in a short period of time. I guess I am still biased toward analog since I have used it for close to 30 years now and am still not sold on the all digital format. I am getting closer to it, but am not quite there yet. However, I will continue to keep an open mind and ear to what the future holds for us. :cool: BTW...In defense of the DAW, I have spent much., much less time editing in the digital format than I did in the taping spicing days. (Remember those days?!) Now that I think about it....I have come to rely on DAW more than analog the last couple of years.

[Emma]

Thanks for giving me your opinion - it's great to hear what everyone thinks. One of the things I must say about my dissertation is that it isn't about digital v analog. Of course how it compares to the sound of analog tape and working with analog tape will come into it. However it is more about how/if the Daw has impacted upon commercial music production. So comparing the DAW to technologies like DA88's and ADAT's will also come into it. Emma