rayc
retroreprobate
"I'd say that now that DAWs are so cheap, mixing and mastering are getting easier and that the real problem is recording."
Sorry but that reads as newbie talk Daniel. Maybe a little naivety mixed with a touch of hubris. Either that or you're deliberately turning things onto their head for a lark.
The premise that recording is a real problem is correct. That capturing the perfoormance is key, fundamental and insanely difficult to get correct is right, however, the other parts of your argument are out of whack:
Technology has made the recording process much easier. What's recorded and how are perennial problems.
Technology has made physically mixing much easier. The choices made in mixing are still quite difficult & possibly, through the availability of more tracks & the human tendency to try to fill them, even more difficult.
Technology has assisted Mastering but not really made easier. The trained ears and knowledge of who, when, where, what, why, how & with what isn't inherent in any technology - DAW or otherwise.
Presets, VSTs, Plug ins and machines aren't the answer.
I know of only a couple of homerecordists on these forums that manage to "master" with professional sounding results. They are able to do this because they have fantastic hearing, the nouse to interpret what they hear backed up with experience & skills to address what they hear.
Myself: I record in a fairly rudimentary way with basic tools because I need to use stuff I have a reasonable handle on, (Reaper, 8 in/out soundcard, 8 or so mixed mics/ an 1/2 doz guitars), I mix to my tastes & skills which are inclined towards dense mixes because I have trouble determining what to leave out - in other words my tastes in my won work are inexorably dictated by my ability to make thinsg happen or not. When I've a decent, (for me & my limited abilities writing), song reasonably recorded and mixed as best I can, (with significant input, guidance, commentary and direction from the MP3 Mixing Clinic), I send the track off for mastering because I can't hear the nuances & can't address the problems. I don't doubt that quite a few people could learn to master if they had a really good ear & were prepared to spend the time.
After a certain level of DYI I also go to dentists, doctors, optometrists and motorcycle mechanics for similar reasons.
In all things the introduction of technology alters and sometimes enhances processes and work flow, (you'd be amazed at how much MS WORD has altered written communication by its built in biases, setting out, auto correction, spelling, layouts etc - and in many cases not for the better - vale indented paragraphing). In each case, however, technology brings with it a new range of problems that require human intervention. There are very few things we allow machines to do without directing, steering, altering redrafting etc.
The wheel is unreal but then we had to deal with axles, wheel ruts, uneven surfaces, turning without a differential different circumsfrences between wheels causing the cart to slowly move in a circle etc.
Sorry but that reads as newbie talk Daniel. Maybe a little naivety mixed with a touch of hubris. Either that or you're deliberately turning things onto their head for a lark.
The premise that recording is a real problem is correct. That capturing the perfoormance is key, fundamental and insanely difficult to get correct is right, however, the other parts of your argument are out of whack:
Technology has made the recording process much easier. What's recorded and how are perennial problems.
Technology has made physically mixing much easier. The choices made in mixing are still quite difficult & possibly, through the availability of more tracks & the human tendency to try to fill them, even more difficult.
Technology has assisted Mastering but not really made easier. The trained ears and knowledge of who, when, where, what, why, how & with what isn't inherent in any technology - DAW or otherwise.
Presets, VSTs, Plug ins and machines aren't the answer.
I know of only a couple of homerecordists on these forums that manage to "master" with professional sounding results. They are able to do this because they have fantastic hearing, the nouse to interpret what they hear backed up with experience & skills to address what they hear.
Myself: I record in a fairly rudimentary way with basic tools because I need to use stuff I have a reasonable handle on, (Reaper, 8 in/out soundcard, 8 or so mixed mics/ an 1/2 doz guitars), I mix to my tastes & skills which are inclined towards dense mixes because I have trouble determining what to leave out - in other words my tastes in my won work are inexorably dictated by my ability to make thinsg happen or not. When I've a decent, (for me & my limited abilities writing), song reasonably recorded and mixed as best I can, (with significant input, guidance, commentary and direction from the MP3 Mixing Clinic), I send the track off for mastering because I can't hear the nuances & can't address the problems. I don't doubt that quite a few people could learn to master if they had a really good ear & were prepared to spend the time.
After a certain level of DYI I also go to dentists, doctors, optometrists and motorcycle mechanics for similar reasons.
In all things the introduction of technology alters and sometimes enhances processes and work flow, (you'd be amazed at how much MS WORD has altered written communication by its built in biases, setting out, auto correction, spelling, layouts etc - and in many cases not for the better - vale indented paragraphing). In each case, however, technology brings with it a new range of problems that require human intervention. There are very few things we allow machines to do without directing, steering, altering redrafting etc.
The wheel is unreal but then we had to deal with axles, wheel ruts, uneven surfaces, turning without a differential different circumsfrences between wheels causing the cart to slowly move in a circle etc.
Last edited:
} that such a sentence appears in a home recording forum.
