X
XLR
______
I think any term with 12 or more syllables kicks ass.I sure do like this term for what we do.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I don't remember the exact year, but I think it was somewhere around 1993 that it came on. It's called "the Internet"..What year is skynet suppose to be turned on?
And most don't have the slightest idea what they are doing. If they did, this board would not be necessary.
And most folks drive like idiots, too. That doesn't mean that it's the way it should be done.
Another fact - and IMHO a more pertinent one, IMHO - is that most newbs believe or are led to believe by morons and shysters like the ones who put out the software on which this thread is based that mixing is a simple mechanical process that anyone or any program can perform with virtually no skill or experience.
That's tantamount to saying that building your own house or designing your own automobile is something that anyone can do well. It's bullsh*t.
Sure, some people build their own houses or design their own motorcycles and so forth, but they are either people who do not work 40 hour weeks doing something else full-time and hew their own 2x4s and draw their own blueprints while they are doing it, or they indeed do it all but take ten years to do it on their spare time and don't expect to have their 3-story McMansion up on meSpace next week.
I don't see many people here raising and milking and killing their own livestock. Hell, your average American doesn't even cook most of their own meals anymore (unless you call popping a couple of Lean Pockets into the microwave "cooking"). Yet they expect to crank out their own multi-track productions that sound like George Martin without even spending any money or breaking any sweat or learning any thing or spending any time.
G.
X
XLR
______
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Many do recording out of a pure love of making music themselves, and learning to mix is part of it.
I wouldn't call someone a shyster because they offer or endorse a product that will do a rough mix.
I don't see it as the same. It would be inaccurate if they claimed it would provide professional results. But that's not what I've seen. In fact, the toontrack person who was discussing it in Reaperland was very practical about it, as is the company ad copy I've seen. But I'm a musician who sometimes mixes. If I were a mixer I'd probably be angry too.
kcearl
I see deaf people
i think Ill give up on this hobby...some of you have sucked all the fun out 
ez_willis
.
it's a hobby, stupid. and i ain't gonna pay someone to mix songs that no one other than a few people on a few forums and my friends.
C
Chibi Nappa
New member
No. And most people can't. I love music but I learned very quickly that I can't sing at all, my writing is pretty bad, and my playing is 100% average. I also learned very quickly that I can record/mix better than most. So I threw my energy into that.
But take the guy who is writing, playing, tracking and working 40 hrs a week. What is the most he will get out of software like this (and Ozone, and Harbal, and...)? He will get false hope, spin his wheels, and waste his time for a bland result.
Glen said it. Use other people. There are plenty of us. On the rare occasion I do write a song, I don't mess around with drum loops and autotune trying to make up for my own obvious musical performance short-comings. I go get a drummer and a singer.
Ditto for the other side of production. If you can't do it, get somebody who can. A computer program spitting out a "better than bad but not much else" result is an insult to your time and music.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Honestly, this is really no different than Garage Band, and I really don't see the harm.
If you're a singer/songwriter demoing in your home and you're not after super-awesome pro results but you just want to make your mixes sound a little more like a "CD," this is probably a pretty cool product. It's affordable, it's bone-simple, it has a fair number of options to make your songs sound different in different ways, and honestly we do have to keep in mind that the presentation of a song is going to impact how others respond to it. Something that sounds more "mixed" is going to sound more pro - if what you're trying to do is make a demo and then, idunno, look for other band members or shop it around to small labels to try to get someone to put you into a real studio, and you have no interest in the art of recording and mixing, this is probably a good tool. All you have to do is not fuck up your tracking (a tall enough order) and select a few presets that work well together, and you'll have something servicable.
If, on the other hand, you enjoy recording and enjoy mixing and enjoy learning, then actually going out there, busting out your favorite compressors, EQs, delays, and reverbs, and having at it is a no-brainer. You enjoy the process, you enjoy bettering yourself, and you'll have a LOT more flexibility.
It's a tool a pro will never want, but I also doubt it'l;l ever really be a viable competition to a pro recording, you know? It's just a good tool for people who have no interest in recording per se, but still want to make a demo that doesn't suck.
EDIT - sniped.
But what if the "result" is just supposed to be an ends to a mean? We're talking about a $70 product here, this and a Reaper liscense plus an entry-level interface and a mic and you can probably make a bone-simple mix for sub-$300. What if you're not trying to record an album in your basement, but rather are just making demos to put in "musician wanted" ads, or you're an aspiring songwriter trying to shop their songs around for someone else to record, and you want to make your demos sound a little more polished? This isn't a substitute for going into a pro studio if you want to make a pro-sounding record, but I could totally see this being appropriate as a first step towards preparing to do that.
Plenty of pro musicians even record their own demos, these days, before tracking them in a "real" studio and releasing them commercially. This just makes that initial demo a little more listenable.
If you're a singer/songwriter demoing in your home and you're not after super-awesome pro results but you just want to make your mixes sound a little more like a "CD," this is probably a pretty cool product. It's affordable, it's bone-simple, it has a fair number of options to make your songs sound different in different ways, and honestly we do have to keep in mind that the presentation of a song is going to impact how others respond to it. Something that sounds more "mixed" is going to sound more pro - if what you're trying to do is make a demo and then, idunno, look for other band members or shop it around to small labels to try to get someone to put you into a real studio, and you have no interest in the art of recording and mixing, this is probably a good tool. All you have to do is not fuck up your tracking (a tall enough order) and select a few presets that work well together, and you'll have something servicable.
If, on the other hand, you enjoy recording and enjoy mixing and enjoy learning, then actually going out there, busting out your favorite compressors, EQs, delays, and reverbs, and having at it is a no-brainer. You enjoy the process, you enjoy bettering yourself, and you'll have a LOT more flexibility.
It's a tool a pro will never want, but I also doubt it'l;l ever really be a viable competition to a pro recording, you know? It's just a good tool for people who have no interest in recording per se, but still want to make a demo that doesn't suck.
EDIT - sniped.
But what if the "result" is just supposed to be an ends to a mean? We're talking about a $70 product here, this and a Reaper liscense plus an entry-level interface and a mic and you can probably make a bone-simple mix for sub-$300. What if you're not trying to record an album in your basement, but rather are just making demos to put in "musician wanted" ads, or you're an aspiring songwriter trying to shop their songs around for someone else to record, and you want to make your demos sound a little more polished? This isn't a substitute for going into a pro studio if you want to make a pro-sounding record, but I could totally see this being appropriate as a first step towards preparing to do that.
Plenty of pro musicians even record their own demos, these days, before tracking them in a "real" studio and releasing them commercially. This just makes that initial demo a little more listenable.
mshilarious
Banned
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I use my own creative talent to do as much or as little to a mix as is required to take it where the producer's vision guides it. (Always easier if I'm also the producer.
What's amazing is how extremely similar all of those producers' visions are
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
I guess it's kind of like Line6. It's nowhere near a pro-quality product, but its cheap, idiot-proof (sort of), and a good way to quickly get result at home that sound passable like the real thing for hobbyists who don't have the time or inclination to go after the real thing.
As a guitarist, I personally have been totally underwhelmed by every Line6 amp I've ever plugged into, but at the same time, they definitely have their place.
As a guitarist, I personally have been totally underwhelmed by every Line6 amp I've ever plugged into, but at the same time, they definitely have their place.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
It would seem to me that software that claims to do your hobby for you would suck all the fun out of it quicker than anything else.i think Ill give up on this hobby...some of you have sucked all the fun out
That's the fallacy here; those that are truly in this for the hobby aspect of it would typically shun something that claimed to do their hobby for them, whether it's an engineer or a crappy piece of software. Yet somehow the software is OK, but the engineer isn't?
No, there's more behind that POV than just "this is only a hobby", whether the hobbyists want to admit it or not.
G.
kcearl
I see deaf people
im not a hobbiest mixer...thats a part of it I never really bargained on at first...it takes me about three days to finish a song from idea, programming, to final recording...it takes me double that to mix it at the moment
Im all about learning new skills, which I do...but Im not that interested in mixing, or mastering for that matter
I own motorbikes too...Im not interested in fixing them...just improving my riding
kcearl
I see deaf people
speaking of which Im going to fire up my PC as its far more interesting than debating shite here.....
X
XLR
______
Weird there's so much angst about a goofy mixing app.
BTW, using a pro mix engineer doesn't always have a happy ending. Anybody remember DavidK's story about his 2nd CD? He got a Sony deal, IIRC, and brought in symphony players for the non-fiddle parts (David's a violinist), pro studio tracking, pro mix engineer suggested by someone at the label. David was producer, which he was very good at. Tracking worked out well. The mixer was a total disaster. David couldn't use any of the guy's work, wasting mucho $ and time. Mixed it himself.
BTW, using a pro mix engineer doesn't always have a happy ending. Anybody remember DavidK's story about his 2nd CD? He got a Sony deal, IIRC, and brought in symphony players for the non-fiddle parts (David's a violinist), pro studio tracking, pro mix engineer suggested by someone at the label. David was producer, which he was very good at. Tracking worked out well. The mixer was a total disaster. David couldn't use any of the guy's work, wasting mucho $ and time. Mixed it himself.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
I do think there are a number of people who will find this valuable, though.
My dad is actually a perfect example. I got into recording years ago when I was in college, and when he realized just what you could do working on your own, he got the recording bug. He went out and bought a Korg D-8, used that for a number of years, but recently I got him hooked up on Reaper and he's decided he prefers working on a computer.
However, for him the hobby isn't "recording" as much as it is writing music. He has absolutely no interest in learning how to use a compressor or playing with reverb parameters or anything, and claims he no longer has the ear required to hear slight EQ tweaks. For him, all that stuff is a hinderance - it's a necessary evil that sometimes he has to deal with (he'll usually use a reverb plugin or two while mixing) but just a hassle that he'd rather not have to bother with. So generally when he mixes all he does is set levels, throw a little 'verb here and there, and call it a day. He doesn't want to be bothered with anything else.
So, when my sister got a Mac laptop and introduced him to Garage Band, he was instantly interested because he suddenly didn't have to bother with any of that crap. He could simply record a vocal track, then pull up a "male vocal" plugin; record an acoustic and then pull up an "acoustic guitar" plugin; run his (hastily sequenced in Fruity Loops; he's a Tom Waits fan, so we're talking pretty sparse) percussion loops through a "drum" plugin, etc. He didn't have to worry about what a compressor does or what an EQ does or what amount of reverb he should use or anything, really - he could simply slap a plugin on it and be done with it.
Since my dad has zero interest in the process of mixing a record, wants to get it over with as quickly as possible, and just wants to make music, this kind of an approach is awesome for him. On the other hand, I enjoy the process of mixing, so for me what's a "hassle" for my dad is a cool creative exersize. The difference here is for my dad the hobby is making music and writing songs, while for me the hobby is writing songs and mixing them into an album.
It has a place, even if it's something that anyone with an interest in mixing would never want.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
That's perfectly fine, kc. I appreciate, understand and respect that point. It is in fact pretty much the point I was driving at in my own way.
It still begs three questions:
1. Why is it OK to have software do it for you, but not OK to have a human being do it?
2. Which one do you really think can ultimately do a more respectful job to the music you have spend days to craft? I'm not talking about some guy with skills equal to your average hobbyist, I'm talking about someone who actually does this stuff with a serious attitude.
3. What is the final product you're actually interested in making? A perfectly fine song or a perfectly fine recording of a perfectly fine song? If it's the former, if it's really about making music and not making a recording, then why bother recording at all (or why bother worrying about the quality of the recording, at least)? If it's the later, than isn't that at least as important a part of the process as the music making itself, deserving of more than a phone-in by a piece of junk software?
I do remember David, and he had an excellent product.XLR said:
The "pro engineer" he originally brought it to actually had no idea what to do with classical music, or at least his idea was different than David's, but the engineer was too proud to admit it. He tried doing an in-your-face thing to it whereas David's stuff needed more of a Telarc approach.
But I can pretty much guarantee you that David would have never even considered letting software auto-mix his stuff for him.
In fact, considering he had something like 100+ instrument tracks per song, with (if I remember right) something like 40 violin tracks per song alone, I'm sure that that auto-mix software would choke and die before it even came lose to doing what was really needed.
It was, in the end, a human that understood the music and what it needed, and that mixed it. And David would have had it no other way.
G.
Last edited:
X
XLR
______
OK that does it.
Even though I almost never use broadband compression or even EQ, I'm gonna buy this sucker and use it just to piss you dopes off. And, even better, I'm going to use it to mix a classical ensemble. It'll be phat and in your face.
I'm buying Har Bal too.
Even though I almost never use broadband compression or even EQ, I'm gonna buy this sucker and use it just to piss you dopes off.
And, even better, I'm going to use it to mix a classical ensemble. It'll be phat and in your face.I'm buying Har Bal too.
kcearl
I see deaf people
damn I opened it
1. because the software costs $ and can be used over and over again whereas the guy costs $$$ and has to get $$$ each time
2.i dont need a perfectly finished copy to post on soundclick/myspace/reverbnation/facebook or the MP3 clinic...
3.i like to write songs or tunes for my own amusement...if someone was to say to me "thats great, someone would buy that" then Id track properly in a studio and pay an engineer..
I take my bikes on racetracks...I have no wish to ever race Rossi...I dont even race the other guys...I improve my times...
I snowboard down steeper peaks each season..I have no intention of being in the X games or making a snowboarding film...
I knit sweaters of ever increasing thickness....I dont even live somewhere cold!
Thats only my perspective on this hobby which is one of a few I have...I might not even be doing this in 6 months..i might run out of brilliant drum patterns