dgatwood said:
Counterpoint: synths. Sure, it's cool to be able to tweak the parameters, but half the time, you just want a piano sound that's passable. I don't think people should necessarily understand attack/sustain/release/decay before they attempt to use a keyboard unless they're going for a sound where tweaking those values is typically done (e.g. electronica). There's just no point in bothering keyboard players with those particular details (though they probably should learn how to change split points, create their own combinations, etc.).
The entire point of high tech is to help isolate the user from having to understand the mundane details that aren't necessary to get the job done. Sometimes this is carried too far. Presets for a compressor/limiter come to mind.
I agree with that completly. Presets on instruments are apples and presets on dynamic processers are oranges.
It makes sense that if someone wants a "Baldwin grand" sound that they should just be able to dial ip "Baldwin grand" and be done with it. There is absolutely no need to know how the instrument is creating that sound.
Dynamic processors (verbs, compressers, EQs, etc.) are a different fruit altogether. With these one is modifying an already existing sound, not pulling a specific sound out of a library. How that existing sound needs to be modified to get the desired result (if attainable) depends entirely on the nature of the existing sound. Since the existing sound can vary in a literally infinite fashon, the idea of presets is absolutely ridiculous. The exception here is reverb, where the modification is indeed a modeling of a known quantity (large hall, plate, etc.) which can be stored in a preset library.
dgatwood said:
However, for anything beyond a certain level of complexity, trying to set it up without starting from some plausible base settings is nuts.
As for the argument that presets provide good "base settings" from which one can twiddle: the fact is that even manual controls have two to three inherant preset "starting points" already; all the way down, all the way up and (when applicable) center balanced. One can just as easily twiddle from those positions as they can from any factory preset position. And doing it that way has the advantage of allowing the user to actually learn and understand (without consciously trying) just what it means to start the threshold (for example) at infinity and work up through the volume levels, instead of starting at an arbitrary position somewhere in the middle of the waveform and not knowing where or why that position has been selected as a preset.
Ah, but presets are faster; they can get one closer faster than starting from zero, right? Not necessarily true. Think about it; one would have to know which preset will get them closer faster. If they already know that, then they can just dial the controls to that point manually. Certainly faster than scrolling through a menu of preset positions.
dgatwood said:
It would be like saying that I shouldn't be allowed to use a computer unless I know how to write an OS from scratch and write my own audio app on top of that.
That is a misplaced analogy. It's actually more like saying that you shouldn't be allowed to write an OS and an audio app unless you know how to program.
This is yet another reflection of the core problem: people want to think that making a great sounding recording is easy. Well, folks, it's not. Hell, I've been at it in one form or another for a quarter of a century and I still have
plenty of room for improvement. The expectation has been set - both by the marketers, and by the pricing itself - that because Joe and Jane Consumer can afford to have a multitrack studio in their home that it somehow equates that it must be as easy to work as it is to buy. Wake up and smell the burnt drink coasters.
This is probably the best reason why we don't have flying cars yet. Imagine if jet airplanes and helicopters were given to The Consumer Family and they were told, OK you can now fly your own personal jet or helicopter. They are given no instructions, but they do have a few trim and autopilot settings. The bodies would be lining up at the morgue. It takes skills to pilot a jet or a helicopter, to do so in all sorts of weather and terrain, etc. There may be computer-controlled presets that will fly them straight and level, or maybe even get them from a pre-programmed point A to point B, including takeoff and landing. But when people want to start flying like Top Gun, or even land safely with a full passenger load on a short runway in a rainy, stiff crosswind, basic computer presets short of AI just ain't gonna cut it.
We *are* reaching a certain level of complexity, as you say, when we start talking about audio processing boxes or algorithms, multitrack mixers and editors, etc. We are, in fact, talking about multitrack audio engineering. That is a complicated task to perform, no matter how you slice it. It is not a job that can be done to any satisfactory results via canned recipes. It's really as simple as that (or should I say as complicated as that.
).
Each one of us has a choice; they can leave it as a hobby, or they can dive in head first and shoot for something at least approaching "pro" quality. Either way is fine, I'm not knocking the hobby aspect of it. I also understand that one may not have to time to learn what a compressor actually does. There's nothing wrong with any of that. It's a whole big world out there with a whole lot more interesting and important stuff to worry about than that crap. Absolutely.
All I'm saying is one cannot expect to invest an hour a week and come out the other end sounding like Quincy Jones. It's just too complicated of a job to do that. And presets are not only not a shortct that will get one there, but they are a diversion that will pull one away from that goal even further.
G.
