Auto-Mixing...you knew it was coming...

[Steenamaroo]

The implication was that this is some sort of "artificial intelligence"...that "it knows".
That is IMO way off because all it does is apply per-programmed algorithms...aka - presets.

It may seem like "it knows"...but that's all. It's just matching input to some preconceived processing.
It would be like saying that one of those cheesy push-button keyboards "knows" that it's playing a "C" chord when you press the "C" button...but that too is just a reprogrammed response.

Maybe that's a fine point to some...but it should be very clear that these are presets...there is no magic involved or some higher artificial intelligence making decisions that the user is unable to.

I don't disagree with your greater point but, if i'm honest, I think you're beating it a bit too hard.
Admittedly, I don't like the term "knows" here, though.

Regardless, this software can accurately read the frequency composition of a signal and can graphically display that.
This will, undoubtedly, exceed the knowledge of many.
It can also, admittedly within preprogrammed parameters, make assertions about which signals are masking or accumulating at certain frequencies.

What someone chooses to do with that information is where the wheels can fall off, but it's information none the less.
The accuracy and validity of that shouldn't really be in question and, therefore, I think it has the potential to be a great educational tool, with the right guidance or imposed limitations.

I remember at college one of the tutors would have done blind sine wave frequency tests once a week.
I don't know how useful that was but the intention was to improve the long-term awareness of, and accuracy in pinpointing, specific frequencies.
I suppose I can see the potential for an extension of that idea here.

I'm not playing devil's advocate at all.
Your post caught my attention because I think I would actually make good use of this plug, in the short term, to hone my own awareness and knowledge.

I do feel the same as you about anything that's automated or preset.

 

[miroslav]

I'm not playing devil's advocate at all.
Your post caught my attention because I think I would actually make good use of this plug, in the short term, to hone my own awareness and knowledge.

I do feel the same as you about anything that's automated or preset.

I did say early on that for some people who already understand the underlying technology and processes, it could potentially be used as a learning/comparison tool...a reference check...
...but the concern was/is that for those who have no clue about that stuff to begin with...they would just use it as a crutch.
Like any tool...it comes down to how and why people use it.

AFA beating it a bit too hard....I just respond to people when they quote me, or when someone says something that is meant to illicit a response...and since I was the thread starter, I feel somewhat responsible to give it.
Besides...there's not too much action in other threads at the moment.

 

[Steenamaroo]

I did say early on that for some people who already understand the underlying technology and processes, it could potentially be used as a learning/comparison tool...a reference check...
...but the concern was/is that for those who have no clue about that stuff to begin with...they would just use it as a crutch.

Where educated or informed decisions are being made based on the information available, I think it has the potential to be even more useful to someone with no foundation knowledge.
The assumption that someone with no knowledge will blindly follow and never learn anything is probably true of a great percentage (greater every year, it seems), but still not a great enough percentage to warrant a blanket statement, in my opinion.

Like any tool...it comes down to how and why people use it.

Absolutely.

Incidentally, I am completely expecting an influx of "X software mixed my song...why does it suck" threads in the near future.
I'm already asking the other mods if we can make a subforum for it.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Same reason you don't use a player piano or a robot guitar to play your music.

Who says I wouldn't?

Modern player pianos can use midi. If you want a "live" piano tone, but you're better at programming midi than playing the keys, it's a good solution.
As to robot guitarists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RBSkq-_St8


They say that it takes 10,000 hours to really master a skill. There are a lot of skills to master in the recording process: songwriting, performance, tracking, mixing, mastering. Even if you're working with a full band, you may not have the time or money to put together that skill set.
The idea of "if it sounds good, it's fine" has already been poo-pooed, but I think it really is true. Can you get better results by using an actual human expert to perform any given part of the process? Absolutely!
Can software get better results than an amateur who doesn't have time to get up to that level of skill? Probably. Depends on the song and the people involved in the project.

Everyone has different priorities for their recordings. Maybe becoming an expert mixer isn't one of those priorities.

Whenever someone posts a thread saying "should I try X mic or mic placement or guitar cab?" the answer is always "give it a try; let your ears decide" maybe with some suggestions of alternatives to or expansions on the idea.
Why is it that "should I try X piece of software" are so often met with such animosity?

 

[Martin Maniac]

Just a comment... I have a friend who's a great guitar player, in fact he taught me how to play many years ago. He works as a manager in a shop. He has a skimpy little home studio, just a couple of mics and an old Cakewalk program. He doesn't know squat about mastering. I told him about these automated mastering programs and he was all over it. He couldn't wait to try it out. He was very interested in them. So I feel that the automatic mastering software got him on track to think about mastering. He's 10 times cheaper than me and would never pay someone to master his songs. But this made sense to him. At least it got him started.

 

[miroslav]

Everyone has different priorities for their recordings. Maybe becoming an expert mixer isn't one of those priorities.

Whenever someone posts a thread saying "should I try X mic or mic placement or guitar cab?" the answer is always "give it a try; let your ears decide" maybe with some suggestions of alternatives to or expansions on the idea.
Why is it that "should I try X piece of software" are so often met with such animosity?

I agree that not everyone is trying to become an expert mixer...and trying out stuff is also not the issue.
In fact, that's at the core...if people WOULD spend time trying out stuff, the stuff they already have in front of them, they might not become experts, but they would certainly learn and get better at it.

Having a preset do things for you will almost guarantee they will never become experts, and probably not even good at mixing...IF...they simply use it like a plugin, which I feel is what most newbs/novices will do.
I mean...if the tools and the learning opportunities have already been there...and lots of people just dodged them and looked for the quick path to the end result...I find it hard to believe that now, with a plugin that helps you even more to dodge and cut to the end game, will somehow change that and make them more curious and interested in learning.

Some people may use it as a learning tool...but I think it's pretty obvious who iZotope is targeting with this and why.

Speaking of their marketing...it's deceptive from the start. The "Track Assistant is Listening" thing is so lame, IMO...it's a pure lie. Nothing is "listening"...it's just a mathematical comparison computation based on algorithm presets.
They could have said "Track Assistant is Analyzing"...but they wanted to make it appear as though there was some higher entity actually listening to your song, and then both objectively and subjectively making mixing decisions for you.

People can view it differently....and of course, everyone can buy it and use it (I'm certainly not expecting to stop anyone here...) ...but IMO, it just smacks of a further dumbing-down of the mixing process.

I'm also curious how it will affect the guys with the small studios...the ones who kinda live off the newbs/novices by providing tracking/mixing/mastering services.
I mean....with auto-mixing and auto-mastering...I can see a lot of that biz affected, if more people are convinced that these auto-tools will do an as-good or better job.

AFA the bigger pro studios...I don't see any biz going out the door for them, as they already have the experts and the gear.

 

[jimmys69]

I agree that not everyone is trying to become an expert mixer...and trying out stuff is also not the issue.
In fact, that's at the core...if people WOULD spend time trying out stuff, the stuff they already have in front of them, they might not become experts, but they would certainly learn and get better at it.

Having a preset do things for you will almost guarantee they will never become experts, and probably not even good at mixing...IF...they simply use it like a plugin, which I feel is what most newbs/novices will do.
I mean...if the tools and the learning opportunities have already been there...and lots of people just dodged them and looked for the quick path to the end result...I find it hard to believe that now, with a plugin that helps you even more to dodge and cut to the end game, will somehow change that and make them more curious and interested in learning.

Some people may use it as a learning tool...but I think it's pretty obvious who iZotope is targeting with this and why.

Speaking of their marketing...it's deceptive from the start. The "Track Assistant is Listening" thing is so lame, IMO...it's a pure lie. Nothing is "listening"...it's just a mathematical comparison computation based on algorithm presets.
They could have said "Track Assistant is Analyzing"...but they wanted to make it appear as though there was some higher entity actually listening to your song, and then both objectively and subjectively making mixing decisions for you.

People can view it differently....and of course, everyone can buy it and use it (I'm certainly not expecting to stop anyone here...) ...but IMO, it just smacks of a further dumbing-down of the mixing process.

I'm also curious how it will affect the guys with the small studios...the ones who kinda live off the newbs/novices by providing tracking/mixing/mastering services.
I mean....with auto-mixing and auto-mastering...I can see a lot of that biz affected, if more people are convinced that these auto-tools will do an as-good or better job.

AFA the bigger pro studios...I don't see any biz going out the door for them, as they already have the experts and the gear.

The results will tell the story...We shall see. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[RFR]

I will. I couldnt sleep at all last night. I need a program that mixes while I sleep. I'll connect it to my coffee machine timer.

 

[Tadpui]

I will. I couldnt sleep at all last night. I need a program that mixes while I sleep. I'll connect it to my coffee machine timer.

Pfffft. You let a MACHINE make coffee for you?!? I personally grow my own beans, roast them, stomp on them with my own feet until they're ground, then rub two sticks together to create a fire, heat some rainwater that I collected myself, and steep the grounds until they're perfect.

I mean, my coffee tastes like dirt from a hobo's taint, but I made it myself!

 

[jimmys69]

Pfffft. You let a MACHINE make coffee for you?!? I personally grow my own beans, roast them, stomp on them with my own feet until they're ground, then rub two sticks together to create a fire, heat some rainwater that I collected myself, and steep the grounds until they're perfect.

I mean, my coffee tastes like dirt from a hobo's taint, but I made it myself!

Enjoy that coffeet! lol!

 

[RFR]

You ever forget to grind your beans at the store? Then you get home, want to make some coffee and have that "oh, shit" moment. "It's fucking beans, and I have no grinder!"

Well, a plastic ziplock bag with some cloth around it, along with a concrete floor and a hammer takes care of that problem.

That's the closest I've come to Tadpui's elaborate method.

 

[Tadpui]

Enjoy that coffeet! lol!

Hahaha, that's the taste of accomplishment and self-reliance! Its artesian!

But seriously, I struggle with this whole thing. I'm a computer programmer by trade, so I'd like to think that I embrace technology and new ideas. But I love music and I respect the traditions inherent in what we all have come to know and love in what we hear. My opinions are somewhere in the middle. Is it OK to want to try new things, and love the old ways?!? (FYI: yes, it is, but don't tell anybody)

 

[Tadpui]

And for posterity, I drink Keurig coffee. You can really taste the environmental destruction!

 

[Bobbsy]

I've been following this topic with interest for several days now and have a few random thoughts...

First, like the majority of discussions in here, the only realistic answer is "it depends". If somebody is a song writer/performer with no real interest in the technology side of things, maybe auto mixing would work for him. For people like me who aren't musicians at all and record/mix other people's stuff, the mixing is the fun, creative part.

Then you add into this that there's no objective definition of what constitutes a "good" mix. It's purely down to personal taste and what sounds good to me might be totally wrong for another set of ears. (Anecdote to back this up--I do a fair bit of mixing and video work for a very talented woman in Arizona. A few months ago, just for fun, she sent me all the tracks for a specific recording with no notes about what she wanted. She then did a mix at her studio while I did my version here. Even though we know each other's work really well, it was amazing how different the two mixes sounded. Neither was right or wrong...just different.) By the same token, an auto mix might sound fine to some or just plain wrong to others.

Finally though, I suspect that a lot of the regulars here actually enjoy the process of mixing and find it part of the creative process. For me at least, it would be a shame to lose that.

 

[BroKen_H]

Bear in mind that there is a thread here somewhere where someone "mastered" their mix with several different automatic mastering sites/softwares, and then also did a quick master of his own and had John from Massive master the same song. Don't know about everyone else, but John's track was definitely standout. It was obvious which had been done by a pro. Did the others sound horrible? Well, one did (don't remember which site). But the point is, if you don't have 20+ years experience mastering and can't afford to have it done professionally, most of them sounded okay. Not great, not good, but okay.
This tech is in it's infancy. It will take time for it to even get to the "auto master" level of okay, I'm sure. But has been noted over and over. It CAN be used as a learning tool. Also, MOST will not choose to use it that way as we've raised several lazy generations, and I'm not looking forward to the next one that's been raised by cell phones...ah, tangent. Stop it, Ken.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

heat some rainwater that I collected myself

You let the sun evaporate your rainwater for you? Lazy pleb! That's why your coffee tastes like dirt!




Miro, it's sort of interesting that your last post touches upon both of the major parties that are likely to dislike technology like this: the DiY artistic purists ("learn to do it yourself if you really care about art") and the people with economic concerns ("If technology can do this task passably well, it will cost me business")

The strange part being that those two parties are also somewhat opposed to each other. DiY means not hiring someone else to do it if you can learn the skill yourself, and people with an economic stake don't want too many people learning the skills and potentially taking their customers.

 

[miroslav]

Miro, it's sort of interesting that your last post touches upon both of the major parties that are likely to dislike technology like this: the DiY artistic purists ("learn to do it yourself if you really care about art") and the people with economic concerns ("If technology can do this task passably well, it will cost me business")

The strange part being that those two parties are also somewhat opposed to each other. DiY means not hiring someone else to do it if you can learn the skill yourself, and people with an economic stake don't want too many people learning the skills and potentially taking their customers.

The two groups have existed for awhile...and there is some "balance" at this time.

The DYI group that is doing their own mixing... they don't add any new impact on the small studios.
The guys with the small studios service the other group, who doesn't do their own, because they can't, won't or don't know how.
Enter a new "auto" product...and it gives this second group another option, which could potentially take away some of the existing biz from the small studios.

I think small studios start up when they see that there is a demand for a service they can provide.
Do they actually dislike this new "auto" technology...mmm...I don't know....but if there is a potential it can take their biz away, or diminish it...I guess it would be a reason to dislike it, and/or prove that their studio service does a better job.
Of course...there is that home rec bunch that is only looking at convenience and low cost...or no cost....and that bunch always lives in denial, no matter what kind of proof they are given of what is better.

 

[jkuehlin]

The two groups have existed for awhile...and there is some "balance" at this time.

The DYI group that is doing their own mixing... they don't add any new impact on the small studios.
The guys with the small studios service the other group, who doesn't do their own, because they can't, won't or don't know how.
Enter a new "auto" product...and it gives this second group another option, which could potentially take away some of the existing biz from the small studios.

I think small studios start up when they see that there is a demand for a service they can provide.
Do they actually dislike this new "auto" technology...mmm...I don't know....but if there is a potential it can take their biz away, or diminish it...I guess it would be a reason to dislike it, and/or prove that their studio service does a better job.
Of course...there is that home rec bunch that is only looking at convenience and low cost...or no cost....and that bunch always lives in denial, no matter what kind of proof they are given of what is better.

If someones small studio business is threatened by a $200 computer program, they really shouldn't be calling their studio a business. And if they can't outthink a $200 algorithm, they shouldn't be charging people money for the service. We're not talking about Kasparov vs Deep Blue here. Just let the people live in denial. You are choosing to let that bother you. As far as competition, this is a non-factor for any professional studio, small, medium, or large. It in no way enables a user to render a product competitive against that of a pro engineer.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

We're not talking about Kasparov vs Deep Blue here.

Right! Kasparov vs. Deep Blue is WAAAAY simpler!

I work in tech; theoretically, we're all about "disruption" these days. If studios can't offer a product that is superior (or at least that the market considers superior), to a piece of software, the general ethic these days is that they shouldn't continue in business.

I guess that is sort of the idea here. Maybe this software can do a passable job; maybe it can't really. But it will do nothing but improve. Give it a few years, and auto-mixing will be passable.
As that bar raises, studios and mixers will have to step up their own game or change their model. Get some kind of balance between cheaper and/or better than what auto-software can do.
Maybe someone will open a studio where the only thing they do is run your songs through an auto-mixer and an auto-master, perhaps with some minor tweaks as their inexpert ears see the need. $50-$100 for an album and maybe 2 hours of work. And if you want to get paid much more than that for doing it manually, you'd better get really good at it!

 

[Greg_L]

The DYI group that is doing their own mixing... they don't add any new impact on the small studios.

I don't think that's true. The ease of DIY production and distribution has had a huge impact on the entire music industry. Even huge bands that have the budget for mega studios are turning to doing it themselves with pro tools and many of the same basic principles we use with our own meager home recordings.

I don't care if auto-mixing takes potential business away from the small local home studio. I do care that auto-mixing is dumbing down music production even further than it already is, and it's pretty fucking dumbed down already. I'm not anti technology. I'm anti laziness and ignorance.