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

[Bobbsy]

That is true. I suppose what I mean more is that technology will eventually surpass most people's ability to mix/master/whatever to a certain pre-determined standard.

I suspect that will only happen when artificial intelligence computers achieve self awareness--and by that point, a far bigger problem will be Skynet sending terminators to your studio.

 

[miroslav]

Thou dost protest too much.

Looks to me like you're the one protesting if that's all you have to offer in this thread.

OK...you can delete your post now...

I suspect that will only happen when artificial intelligence computers achieve self awareness--and by that point, a far bigger problem will be Skynet sending terminators to your studio.

I wonder what kind of music the terminators will want to record?
Metal Rap...?
Gotta make sure we have the appropriate gear to cover their needs.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

I suspect that will only happen when artificial intelligence computers achieve self awareness--and by that point, a far bigger problem will be Skynet sending terminators to your studio.

Ha! "Dangit! Why do the terminators never coil my cables correctly when they're done!"

Show me a hammer that knows where the nail goes and I'll tell you whether the chicken came before the egg. Yeah, never gonna happen

This hodge podge of metaphors made me unreasonably angry!

The chicken did come before the egg

When I brought up religious wars, I meant metaphorically! Like mac vs PC or pepsi vs coke!

I do think...or at least hope...that people will notice it, and get sick of [cookie-cutter production]

Music production tends to be pretty bad about following fads. The big co.s try to make everything sound like whatever the new hotness is. So it's more likely that the specific cookie cutter will just keep swapping out for a new one.
Of course, music is less of a mono-culture now than it used to be. One of the huge advantages that the low barrier of entry technology has brought is that any hack (i.e. all of us) can create whatever music they like in their bedroom. That, in turn, creates a lot more variety of music available as those hacks have widely diverse tastes.

 

[jkuehlin]

I don't have an argument for people who take the "who cares/I don't care" position.
That's become a way out for everyone who doesn't ...well, care.
While that doesn't have any direct effect on me whatsoever, and it's not like I'm going to suffer if you don't care, and I guess you could even say that I don't care that you don't care...I do find that to be a rather "empty" way to look at things...especially when it comes to art, because it removes the whole point of art, of doing art.
That "who cares" attitude.

There's only one argument that can even BE posed against the 'I don't care', or the position to indifference to be precise. And that's that everyone SHOULD care. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's a fair very position, and its obvious that you feel this way. I completely understand, and hold nothing against that. To reiterate, my indifference had to do with attempting to validate/invalidate a piece of technology based on how some people might/mightnot use it. ...I think its ridiculous and stupid that schools use bananas to teach kids how to put on a condom. But I'm not going to diss bananas just because they're being used to make kids dumber. To me its pointing the blame in the wrong direction.

And IMO...people that replace their own imagination and effort with some synthetic process will lose even more. Sorry.

That presupposes that imagination and effort are necessary for all human achievement. And it seems to me that goes pretty contrary to observation. I can vacuum the floor by hand, or I can let my Roomba do it for me. Either way the floor gets clean. I can manually delete my junkmail or I can program my spam filter to do it for me. In both instances I accomplish nothing by doing menial chores by hand. A job is a job, and though I take pride in my work, that certainly doesn't mean I have to do everything the long way.

 

[miroslav]

That presupposes that imagination and effort are necessary for all human achievement. And it seems to me that goes pretty contrary to observation. I can vacuum the floor by hand, or I can let my Roomba do it for me. Either way the floor gets clean. I can manually delete my junkmail or I can program my spam filter to do it for me. In both instances I accomplish nothing by doing menial chores by hand. A job is a job, and though I take pride in my work, that certainly doesn't mean I have to do everything the long way.

I don't have any problem with technology...none at all.
I've been a DAW user before some people knew how to spell it.
Seriously...I was doing the MIDI sequencing thing since back in the late-80s...Cubase on the Atari...and around '94, I started messing with digital audio software. I actually was one of the first people (no shit) who connected the Atari computer with Cubase, to a Fostex G16 tape recorder...and got it all to sync up. I think I still have my comments about that process that were printed in a Cubase newsletter that we use to get by mail (before audio forums and blogs and all that).

So while I may still roll tape, and work an old-school analog console...don't mistake it for some anti-technology position.
There's technology...and there's technology for the sake of technology, the let's do it just because it's there and because we can, rather than consider what's the value or lack of in using it.

Comparing vacuum cleaners and junkmail filters to writing and recording music is a major apples and oranges thing.
Yes...where it's some mundane chore you have to do over and over and over...that really has little to do with creating art or getting any pleasure from doing it...then yes, let the bots do it for you.
Here, were talking about imagination and the creation of art that is supposed to be a personal statement of sorts...something that that draws out emotions ...where not talking about cleaning your room, which isn't somethnig I would view as "human achievement"...that's just a chore, a necessity we all have to do (that reminds me, I have to vacuum this weekend ).

I can't view the acts of songwriting and recording as pure chores and necessities....though if you are working in a field of music/audio where you have to churn out a hundred new ad jingles or sound design themes a month...stuff that (don't take this personally) is absolutely forgettable, and amounts to little more than audio filler...yeah, I too would probably look for ways to automate that and let the computer do it if it's acceptable to the clients...but again, here we are mostly talking about writing and recording of songs...which IMO, deserve more human touch and should not become a computer generated product at any stage of the process. You using a plugin is one thing...the computer deciding which plugin to apply is another.

 

[BroKen_H]

That is exactly why I like this particular piece of software. If it were available to me, I would have it. The mundane, every song you write, same every time things.
I know what my voice sounds like. I know what I have to do to make it sound where I want it. It takes some tweaking for each song, but I have a preset that I use. Makes my voice sound like my voice (what people are used to hearing on my tracks).

I know what my bass sounds like, and how my playing makes it sound. I have a preset for that. Same EQ, same compressor with the same settings that I put on the bass bridge. Same two tracks that have the same crossover point that I use to emulate a 1x18 cab and a 4x10 cab into that bus. If it's a faster rock song, I have a preset for a track to mirror the bass with my piano. Some of the slower songs have a Subtractor patch that does a sub harmonic mirror of the bass line.

I've spent 100s of hours getting to this point on each of those preset sets. I still tweak each one after it's in the mix, but they both start out life in every mix pretty much the same. And on and on for each track, there are presets that I start with and then move on. If I didn't do this, every track would take 100s of hours (at my skill level).

This software intends (and maybe it will be a couple iterations down the road) to do that for you in a few minutes. Like an electric assistant that knows what you do with each song and sets it up for you. You are still in control. You can still tweak what it does, or scrap it altogether. You can still start all over from scratch. You can still have complete control of what's going on with your tracks, but it gives you suggestions. To a 30 year vet, an assistant (electronic or otherwise) would probably be a nuisance. To someone who's got a few years invested and doesn't want to do all the mundane every single time, this could be a great starting point.

I will wholeheartedly agree that someone who buys this, plugs their music in and lets it do all the work is a hack and not interested in learning at all. Again, that doesn't bother me. It's THEIR music they're doing that to. IF it comes out sounding okay-ish, great. Good on 'em. But likely it will be as noticeable as auto mastering software.

You say YOU can't view... And I agree with the statement, totally. But there are some who'd like to skip some of the steps. If THEY view some of the steps as mundane chores and necessities to get their music out, then by all means, let them get Roombas to bypass those "chores". I don't believe what comes out will be in competition with Greg or Rami or Bat or Andrus or dozens of others here that are doing the entire job for themselves, and doing all the aspects well. Again, it boils down to people having different levels of apathy about different aspects of the process.

Trust me, I'm not done learning by any stretch, but I'd be happy to have this software to help me learn...and to do the vacuuming, please!.

 

[miroslav]

...it boils down to people having different levels of apathy about different aspects of the process.

Mmm....yeah, if that's what it is for some people. Sure, it can drag you down and make you give up altogether.

I've never reached a point of apathy with any aspect of the recording process. I'm equally involved whether I'm overhauling my console or playing my guitar for a new track. Sure, playing the guitar is more fun...but to me, it's all part of the studio process, and I'm deeply into it all.
I know that's not for everyone....and people want a way around some of that, but still, the idea of letting a machine do things for you that are about imagination and emotion...it just doesn't hit home with me.
I think too many people forget that...and they view much of the process as some technical hurdle...when in fact, it much more about art than it is about technical solutions. I also think much of that is caused by the computer tools that are supposed to help.
Too many plugs...too many options...too many considerations with every step of the way...so yeah, it's overwhelming.
Strip that shit down...simplify it and minimize it. Get back to just the broader picture of how it sounds and how you want it too sound.

It kind of reminds me of something I read a long time ago...about the English VS American approach to recording and mixing.
The American approach is to delve deep into every little item, analyze it and surgically deal with it. It's more about precision.
The English approach is about the big picture...and not as much care where the knob is and what the meters are reading.

I don't know if that's still true, or if it's really that clear cut...but people are most certainly pushed more deeply into the technology now, than in the past...because they've been given so many more tools...and I do think that causes a certain nearsightedness to occur.
You stare at that DAW screen...you've got layers and layers of tracks and plugs and whatnot...and it's hard to get past it.

So with that scenario...along comes a new plug than takes over, and allows you to skip past all that stuff...and I can see why it would appeal to some folks...but I think people should just step back, and as I said, strip it back down and just listen to the music...it tells you what to do, and most often, what you need to do is nowhere near as complicated as some people make it out to be.

It's so cliché...but if you have something really good going in...it tends to mix itself for the most part. It doesn't need a lot of help.

 

[jimmys69]

That is exactly why I like this particular piece of software. If it were available to me, I would have it. The mundane, every song you write, same every time things.
I know what my voice sounds like. I know what I have to do to make it sound where I want it. It takes some tweaking for each song, but I have a preset that I use. Makes my voice sound like my voice (what people are used to hearing on my tracks).

I know what my bass sounds like, and how my playing makes it sound. I have a preset for that. Same EQ, same compressor with the same settings that I put on the bass bridge. Same two tracks that have the same crossover point that I use to emulate a 1x18 cab and a 4x10 cab into that bus. If it's a faster rock song, I have a preset for a track to mirror the bass with my piano. Some of the slower songs have a Subtractor patch that does a sub harmonic mirror of the bass line.

I've spent 100s of hours getting to this point on each of those preset sets. I still tweak each one after it's in the mix, but they both start out life in every mix pretty much the same. And on and on for each track, there are presets that I start with and then move on. If I didn't do this, every track would take 100s of hours (at my skill level).

This software intends (and maybe it will be a couple iterations down the road) to do that for you in a few minutes. Like an electric assistant that knows what you do with each song and sets it up for you. You are still in control. You can still tweak what it does, or scrap it altogether. You can still start all over from scratch. You can still have complete control of what's going on with your tracks, but it gives you suggestions. To a 30 year vet, an assistant (electronic or otherwise) would probably be a nuisance. To someone who's got a few years invested and doesn't want to do all the mundane every single time, this could be a great starting point.

I will wholeheartedly agree that someone who buys this, plugs their music in and lets it do all the work is a hack and not interested in learning at all. Again, that doesn't bother me. It's THEIR music they're doing that to. IF it comes out sounding okay-ish, great. Good on 'em. But likely it will be as noticeable as auto mastering software.

You say YOU can't view... And I agree with the statement, totally. But there are some who'd like to skip some of the steps. If THEY view some of the steps as mundane chores and necessities to get their music out, then by all means, let them get Roombas to bypass those "chores". I don't believe what comes out will be in competition with Greg or Rami or Bat or Andrus or dozens of others here that are doing the entire job for themselves, and doing all the aspects well. Again, it boils down to people having different levels of apathy about different aspects of the process.

Trust me, I'm not done learning by any stretch, but I'd be happy to have this software to help me learn...and to do the vacuuming, please!.

I assume you have presets that 'you' made for these? Or at least ones that your particular VST's worked for you.

There is a difference there of a software deciding for the user what it needs. That to me would be interesting is it were even possible. I doubt it.

I find times that I want to use that special plug I bought 5 years ago. Usually not. But the majority of what I use are pretty standard for any situation. But I can't see how a computer algorithm could possibly decide the /ratio/threshold/attack/release of my favorite compressor for me. That is just an example of where the human ears has to be a part of the equation.

I will say that I am kind of a plug in slut. If a competent software that did such came out that would save me time, I would throw a couple grand for it. I do not believe that will happen in my lifetime though.

And by the way, that was kind of hard to read buddy. Maybe place an empty line between paragraphs like I did in my quote? Way easier to read on a smart phone for sure.

Cheers!

 

[jimmys69]

Mmm....yeah, if that's what it is for some people. Sure, it can drag you down and make you give up altogether.

I've never reached a point of apathy with any aspect of the recording process. I'm equally involved whether I'm overhauling my console or playing my guitar for a new track. Sure, playing the guitar is more fun...but to me, it's all part of the studio process, and I'm deeply into it all.
I know that's not for everyone....and people want a way around some of that, but still, the idea of letting a machine do things for you that are about imagination and emotion...it just doesn't hit home with me.
I think too many people forget that...and they view much of the process as some technical hurdle...when in fact, it much more about art than it is about technical solutions. I also think much of that is caused by the computer tools that are supposed to help.
Too many plugs...too many options...too many considerations with every step of the way...so yeah, it's overwhelming.
Strip that shit down...simplify it and minimize it. Get back to just the broader picture of how it sounds and how you want it too sound.

It kind of reminds me of something I read a long time ago...about the English VS American approach to recording and mixing.
The American approach is to delve deep into every little item, analyze it and surgically deal with it. It's more about precision.
The English approach is about the big picture...and not as much care where the knob is and what the meters are reading.

I don't know if that's still true, or if it's really that clear cut...but people are most certainly pushed more deeply into the technology now, than in the past...because they've been given so many more tools...and I do think that causes a certain nearsightedness to occur.
You stare at that DAW screen...you've got layers and layers of tracks and plugs and whatnot...and it's hard to get past it.

So with that scenario...along comes a new plug than takes over, and allows you to skip past all that stuff...and I can see why it would appeal to some folks...but I think people should just step back, and as I said, strip it back down and just listen to the music...it tells you what to do, and most often, what you need to do is nowhere near as complicated as some people make it out to be.

It's so cliché...but if you have something really good going in...it tends to mix itself for the most part. It doesn't need a lot of help.

I also agree here. Taking a step back and letting the music determine what is needed is something only a human ear can decide.

As example; what if an auto mix program threw a chorus on my acoustic intro guitar and I wanted it to be dry? That would seem like more of a chore fixing what a software decided for me than doing the work myself to begin with.

Now it would be entertaining and maybe productive to see what artificial intelligence thought of any particular project. It could give new approaches or ideas that I may not have thought of, but I would not ever rely on it any more than I would have another person select my clothes for the day. My mood, my day, my choice. It usually the same damn dirty ass construction pants, dirty ass hat, and a tank top anyway so bad analogy...Or is it?

 

[BroKen_H]

I assume you have presets that 'you' made for these? Or at least ones that your particular VST's worked for you.

Yes. As I said, I've got 100s of hours invested in getting my vocal preset where I wanted it. I still spend a half hour to an hour tweaking with it once I set down a new track. Same with the bass, and acoustic guitars. Electric I'm still working out. Seems to be a wide variety of clean to pushed to distorted to crushed that doesn't give a lot of room to presets...

And by the way, that was kind of hard to read buddy. Maybe place an empty line between paragraphs like I did in my quote? Way easier to read on a smart phone for sure.

Cheers!

Thanks! Done.

 

[miroslav]

Yes. As I said, I've got 100s of hours invested in getting my vocal preset where I wanted it. I still spend a half hour to an hour tweaking with it once I set down a new track. Same with the bass, and acoustic guitars. Electric I'm still working out. Seems to be a wide variety of clean to pushed to distorted to crushed that doesn't give a lot of room to presets...

I can understand that approach...sometimes it's the thing to do from one song to another...because they end up calling for the same stuff.
That said...I would suggest that on your next song or at some point...don't use ANY of your "presets".

It's like the console mentality..."zeroing the board"...that clears the table so that you don't get caught just doing the same ting over and over. You would surprised that there are many other approaches that would work well for you, and not just your presets that you dialed in over 100's of hours.

IOW...intentionally break away from your comfort zone and do things differently. It's can be very creative and liberating...you suddenly find yourself thinking and using your imagination again...instead of just hitting the same old presets like the last 20 times.

Just give it a try...and don't cave too quick if it's not instantly working for you, and jump back into your presets.
Work it...give it a chance...try a few different things, not just one. I bet you will enjoy it and find out some new things about your production process.

 

[timvracer]

It's like the console mentality..."zeroing the board"...that clears the table so that you don't get caught just doing the same ting over and over. You would surprised that there are many other approaches that would work well for you, and not just your presets that you dialed in over 100's of hours.

Well, I have done this now like, 5 times with my current project. Not because I am looking for a fresh view, but because I end up discovering my mix sucks, and I have to start over. :-(

The joy of learning!

 

[BroKen_H]

I can understand that approach...sometimes it's the thing to do from one song to another...because they end up calling for the same stuff.
That said...I would suggest that on your next song or at some point...don't use ANY of your "presets".

Slowly (for me) I did that with my drums for this project. Completely started from scratch. I do tend to do things differently at points. But I see your point. Maybe if I just played around with a few different plugs, I could get a different vocal sound or something else would pop out and just be amazing. But then I'd have to follow my rule from before and track better Wouldn't that be horrible?
(Meaning, of course, that you have a very good point there).

 

[miroslav]

Well, I have done this now like, 5 times with my current project. Not because I am looking for a fresh view, but because I end up discovering my mix sucks, and I have to start over. :-(

The joy of learning!

When you start things over, from "zero"...you will be thinking about "why am I turning this knob to 5"...and that might lead you to examine and try something new. If it's just at "5" all the time, and you never consider it...reasons for it being there fade away, and you accept everything status quo without asking the questions.
So you stop learning.

I think it's OK to end up with a shitty mix...as long as you know why and how it got there...'cuz then you can fix it.
IMO...too many presets mask the why & how...it's all hidden or forgotten.

 

[jkuehlin]

I don't have any problem with technology...none at all.
I've been a DAW user before some people knew how to spell it.
Seriously...I was doing the MIDI sequencing thing since back in the late-80s...Cubase on the Atari...and around '94, I started messing with digital audio software. I actually was one of the first people (no shit) who connected the Atari computer with Cubase, to a Fostex G16 tape recorder...and got it all to sync up. I think I still have my comments about that process that were printed in a Cubase newsletter that we use to get by mail (before audio forums and blogs and all that).

So while I may still roll tape, and work an old-school analog console...don't mistake it for some anti-technology position.
There's technology...and there's technology for the sake of technology, the let's do it just because it's there and because we can, rather than consider what's the value or lack of in using it.

Comparing vacuum cleaners and junkmail filters to writing and recording music is a major apples and oranges thing.
Yes...where it's some mundane chore you have to do over and over and over...that really has little to do with creating art or getting any pleasure from doing it...then yes, let the bots do it for you.
Here, were talking about imagination and the creation of art that is supposed to be a personal statement of sorts...something that that draws out emotions ...where not talking about cleaning your room, which isn't somethnig I would view as "human achievement"...that's just a chore, a necessity we all have to do (that reminds me, I have to vacuum this weekend ).

I can't view the acts of songwriting and recording as pure chores and necessities....though if you are working in a field of music/audio where you have to churn out a hundred new ad jingles or sound design themes a month...stuff that (don't take this personally) is absolutely forgettable, and amounts to little more than audio filler...yeah, I too would probably look for ways to automate that and let the computer do it if it's acceptable to the clients...but again, here we are mostly talking about writing and recording of songs...which IMO, deserve more human touch and should not become a computer generated product at any stage of the process. You using a plugin is one thing...the computer deciding which plugin to apply is another.

Ah! I see. Your problem was ultimately the juxtaposition between code and mechanics vs expression, creativity, and pure imagination. If that's what this is really about I can truly appreciate your opinion. I never meant to assert that there could be a substitute for ~that~ aspect of our humanity. There are parts of my day-to-day work schedule as a studio pro that are literally the artistic equivalent of washing dishes or taking out the trash. Try sitting for around for hours and eliminating wi-fi static from Ted Cruz's lapel microphone and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Happy to deliver a product to perfection but neither the Cruz campaign nor the Fox network could have cared less weather I used an automated daw plugin or did it by hand.

Understanding your reasoning on the non-equivocation between art and chores, I would point out though, the line between the two isn't as strait forward as you might think (I know that sounds terrible). I guess the question is which parts of the creative artistic process are executed through a method that is ultimately inconsequential to the final result? What parts of the creative process are actually best jobbed out a machine? I think the answer is going to be radically different for everyone. Some artists mix their paint by hand. Others buy it pre-mixed because if it's the right color, who cares?

Interesting stuff.

 

[miroslav]

I guess the question is which parts of the creative artistic process are executed through a method that is ultimately inconsequential to the final result? What parts of the creative process are actually best jobbed out a machine? I think the answer is going to be radically different for everyone. Some artists mix their paint by hand. Others buy it pre-mixed because if it's the right color, who cares?

Interesting stuff.

I think those questions can only be answered on a personal basis...there is no single answer that applies.
My perspective is more about mixing the paint by hand...though not necessarily for every little thing. I'm also a believer in the assembly line approach to doing some stuff. I developed that approach back in my multimedia/graphics days...which is a great way to work when you have to repeat something over and over...so rather than complete one widget from start to finish and move to the next...you do a lot of widgets in stages and in the end they are all finished together in the last assembly stage. Maybe that's something I learned when I was in my early twenties, and worked at Westinghouse for about a year...we made air conditioners on the assembly lines.

I fully understand that in some circumstances, there can be that "washing dishes" component to an audio task...especially in the high traffic studios that churn out other types of product, and not just some artist's new concept album.
Though as I said...most here are kinda doing their concept albums...which to me should be mostly about artistic expression and personal subjective decision making, etc.
Don't let some preset take any of that away from you if you don't have to.

It's funny talking about the paint mixing.
When I was fixing up my studio space several years back...I wanted to paint one of the walls where all my guitars hang. So I thought about it for awhile, and then I went down to Home Depot, where they have the returned paint rack, stuff people bought, then decided the color was wrong, etc...and you can get cans of paint for a couple of bucks.
I picked up like 10 cans, pints/quarts mostly, of whatever they had there. I was basically "mixing" that paint in my mind as I was buying it.
Then I layered the wall in many stages...starting with a base color, and then applying the other colors in patterns that I was making up as I was working...using all kinds of brushes (even used a toilet brush, clean of course) so that I could get a variety of textures.
I've had people look at it convinced it was some sort of applied wall paper/acrylic or something...because there is a kind of pattern, plus the layering and texture...so it just doesn't look like a basic painted wall.

I guess I could have just picked up one or two cans of pre-mixed color.

 

[BroKen_H]

Yeah. Really all I want in a software assistant is making my coffee and washing the mug after...as well as the rest of the dishes.
And maybe some bacon. Yeah, bacon!

 

[radi0j0hn]

It's like photography...

Not to worry. In my world the "fauxtographers" never learn to shoot manually and then end up with bad wedding shots when the lighting is a challenge. Many pros know to shoot manually, as they know how the camera will work.

Same with mixing. Some computer programming may come up with a solution, but a human mind may know that "when it sounds right, it is right."

Since I only record radio interviews, the only computer assist I'd like is one where you capture a guest's "Uhhh," and then it finds all the others!

 

[VomitHatSteve]

I guess the question is which parts of the creative artistic process are executed through a method that is ultimately inconsequential to the final result? What parts of the creative process are actually best jobbed out a machine? I think the answer is going to be radically different for everyone. Some artists mix their paint by hand. Others buy it pre-mixed because if it's the right color, who cares?

That's a pretty good summary of my thoughts on things.

It's not really any of our place to tell people where they should draw that line for themselves.

 

[RFR]

That's a pretty good summary of my thoughts on things.

It's not really any of our place to tell people where they should draw that line for themselves.

I agree. But it is our place to express our own opinions and experiences on the subject.
If done in a non- combative manner, there are many different points brought up.

They won't change anyones veiw, in and of themselves,, but give food for thought. Hopefully people's horizons are broadened.

I know for myself, this thread has been a learning experience.

That's not a bad thing. Then again, maybe its just me. Being a Gemini, i"ll tend to look at both sides.