R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15]   Go Down

Author Topic: The advantage of large mixers?  (Read 34378 times)


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 476
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #210 on: September 23, 2004, 06:45:29 pm »

Well you can only argue over the benefits of large mixers so far. In the end it all comes down to musical quality which is not only determined by one piece of equipment.

Sahib wrote on Thu, 23 September 2004 00:30

I can only come to the conclusion that the problem is not the technology but is the people who use it. There are many examples of people who produce excellent music with the new technology but in my opinion not enough to challange the ones that were produced and being produced on the old.


Worst of all we have an increasing generation of people whom are content with mp3.

Cemal Ozturk

I will agree with my dear elder brother on these points. Indeed, while us the anoracs of music recording technology cut each other's throat on whether analog is better or digital is, the ordinary listeners' expectation is down to a crappy 128k mp3 quality. Almost all of the ordinary music listeners I know around me -apart from a few audiophile friends- are quite content with mp3s so it doesn't make the least difference for them whether the music presented to them has been recorded on analog tape or pro tools or radar. All they are interested in is a good songwriting with the perfect balance of originality from and familiarity to the one before.

I certainly understand and appreciate the fact that as far as music makers are concerned the key to survival in the industry is to be hip and equipped with the best equipment available because that is the only way for record label execs who have no interest in knowing the intangible qualities of the music as well as tangible qualities to judge whether they are getting their money's worth, and there are serious amounts of investments involved in this and for some it's crucial to hold on to their investments' reputation and they certainly don't want to be outdated overnight, while some others find it easier to close the gap by speculating that the newer the better. Alas, an equipment is only as good as the listening ear can hear it.

But as a songwriter that writes songs for more than 15 years I must say that no amount or type of equipment can replace the quality of a good songwriting with a focused integrity and familiarity but in the mean time originality and again I must admit that we do not get that many good products on the surface as often and many as we used to get. The reason to that is not that there aren't as many good songwriters/performers today as there used to be, but is rather because, as my bro pointed out earlier on, the facilities today are so much better in favour of average users that it's getting harder for superior ones to have their music heard. There's so much shit around that you really have to fish out for what you want. That's why the sonic quality expectations got lower and lower and lower. Because on either side of the river (music makers and music buyers) the criteria for quality had been seriously compromised.

I was talking to a bassist friend a few weeks ago, whom is not among the brightest players I've seen so to speak, and he said at some point that when he was into playing an instrument in the 80s and saw Eddie VH and Toto and that generation musicians play he said to himself he'd never be able to play that instrument as it was supposed to be played, he was so scared. But, he said, then a band called Nirvana came up and he looked at them and said "yep, I can do that!" and he started doing it. When I reacted by saying "yeah but that compromised and lowered the quality of skill once involved in top level musicianship and made that compromise perfectly acceptable" he said "who gives a tosh? At least I can play something and be perfectly accepted now." The fashion today is that you are allowed to push your computer recording system and bitrates and sample rates because it is hip but if you try to push your musicianship or performing skills that's called "wanking".

"Be average but get the best tools."

Yes, the trend at the beginning of 90s was that mediocrity, or okay I'll soften it, being average was not that bad after all, which led to today's acceptance that mediocrity is now "the standard" and the technical/sonic expectations are shaped accordingly.

Funny enough, even though I still miss those days when everything was big and pushed to its limits by human force and not by processor power, I'm looking at it and thinking "thank god we didn't get our material out back then because there was no effin' way we could have made it among those monsters. At least today we have a chance."

At least that's the way I see it from the point that I stand.

Mahcem Ozturk
M Ozturk

Eric Bridenbaker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #211 on: September 23, 2004, 08:38:50 pm »

electrical wrote on Thu, 23 September 2004 16:56

I think, and I know George will agree, that the potential for good sound in a digital domain exists, and is sometimes achieved. For this reason, I think debates about the sound quality of the two paradigms (old school analog tape, outboard and desk v. new school computer, computer and another computer maybe) are not enlightening.

this is a really good point - the two sounds (Analog and Digital) are not directly comparable - they're different and both can sound really good.

electrical wrote on Thu, 23 September 2004 16:56

New school technologies and products become obsolete so quickly that no one will ever have the opportunity to optimize his technique to take advantage of any particular technology or product, as this takes longer than the "learning curve" to become competent

Working with computers in any capacity can become very frustrating because of this factor. I wish I could spend more time working on the mixes instead of upgrading/cross grading/retooling etc... But the reason IMO is because digital does keep getting better, especially on the software front.

Curious as to your opinion here:

What do you feel are the main causes of this rapid pace?


New school technologies are valuable precisely because they change all the time, to incorporate the features and capabilities required by a fluid and aggressively-reaching clientele. If they were to become static enough for their performance to be optimized and generate a pool of experience, they would lose their principle asset.

Because of this rapid rate of change, there can be no archival format or storage, as the rest of the computer industry changes in a similar fashion, making old sessions irretrievable.

C'mon Steve... It's just good ol' PCM - simply Data. Remember that we used to have wax cylinders and '78's.... we've managed to retrieve those.  What makes digital so different? If anything, archiving, backup and duplication is easier in the digital domain.


I run every session like it is the most important thing to ever happen, because for at least a few people in the room, it is. I want to give them a permanent master that will outlive them.


This is impossible in the new school paradigm, but it is inherent in the old school one.

Not Word! Absolutely Not.... IMO digital is the sound that will prove to have more longevity in the long run as a true archival technique - clarity... transparency.. those will do justice to a great performance.

I love analog tape, but I feel putting that sound on a recording becomes more of an album/production/engineering art sort of decision, and there's certainly nothing wrong with making great records... I just don't buy the "timelessness of analog above all" argument..

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15]   Go Up