So... 'professionals' understand the 'rules', yet tell non-professionals there are no rules. And when you break the rules, there are none. But when others do, it's because they are uninformed?
For the record, I *never* said "there are no rules". I happen to hate that statement, personally, because there *are* rules. I think the problem is in the interpretation of the word "rule". By rule, one does not always mean immutable law. Sometimes it means fundamental principle or general guideline.
Of course there are exceptions to those rules/principles/guidelines, times when some rules don't apply, other times when one rule overrides another rule. Its a complex situation and a complex relationship - because audio engineering is a complex process - and it takes a basic understanding of the actual maning of the basic rules/principles/guidelines to understand their place in the engineer's decision process.
But to try and oversimplify that situation and aviod all that important understanding by saying "there are no rules" is a shortcut dodge for those who don't really fundamentally understand what's up and what's down, and it gives the false impression to others that the important principles that need to be learned don't really exist.
You say you can get good results from inferior equipment and software, yet you frown on those who can't afford top of the line, even to the point of mocking.
Wow, where did that come from? I have spent the past two years, including the last few days in a couple of different threads defending the point of view that ears and technique are far more important than gear, and I have never made fun of anybody for not having A-list gear. I have an *extremely* modest project studio in my home myself, with really nothing in the way of what most of us would call "top shelf" hardware.
What I was satirizing here was not that this guy didn't spend money on gear, but rather that he spent a whoe bunch of money on a whole lot of gear that your average pro would not buy or at least list until well after they bought or listed a whole lot of more basic stuff. He has spent a lot of money on a large concentration of unremarkable compressors and "pseudo-mastering devices" that end in "-izer" (rarely do you see someone with all three like this), yet no mention of micropones, only a generic listing of a "tube preamp", a mysterious reference to "Motown EQs" and no monitors outside of the NS-10s.
I'm not saying there's anything necesssarily intrinsically "wrong" with any of that stuff, but taken as a collection it does (to me, anyway) speak volumes about the flavor of knowledge base from which this guy has been working, and it certainly implies a backloaded, fix it later with magic tools approach to audio production, which I do quite disagree with.
Now maybe Albert is on to something with his theory that the guy is rebuilding/upgrading. He does have some good stuff in there too. I was just making the somehat satirical observation that it's not often that one finds a Summit Audio compressor sandwiched between a Finalizer, an Exciter *and* a Maximizer.
I'm just trying to figure out what's being said here. I thought it was all about the music, the sound and the results. If a mix is bad, it's bad regardless of what equipment was used to mix and finish it. Doesn't that also apply when it's good?
Yep, you're absolutely correct IMHO. I agree with that completly.
G.
) The vocal treatment on both pretty well blows IMHO though.