Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/24/2012 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user
interface.
The processing might be great, but I want faders that I can ride
and I
want one control per function.
Typically, an EQ plug-in looks like the real thing. You see
one knob or switch per function, but you have only one
control, and that's the mouse that you have to move to each
knob before you can adjust what that knob adjusts.
Right, it's not the plug-ins I am complaining about, it's the mixing
process. The plug-ins might be fine, but if I am using a mixer I
already have with outboard stuff I already have, why should I bother?
I've told my story before, but after 35+ years behind large format
consoles, switching to an ITB rig was awful. But I had to, because of
the market
realities in this locale.
Took me a little over a year of constant complaining to come around,
and I refused to even start with it unless I had a 37" 1920x1080 LCD
monitor with two similar resolution 22" wing monitors. (Fortunately,
I was able to hit the market just right to build on the cheap a
higher powered box that could support that plus the ITB processing
required.)
Sure, I too would like a knob for every function (and there is no way
in hell I'd ever consider mixing live sound on a "paged" or "moused"
interface). But there are some real advantages in the small
footprint, gear cost, and maintenance. Day-to-day good things can
happen, such as complete and immediate mix recall being first and
foremost, followed by a delightful precision that is exactly
repeatable at each playback.
Part of the learning curve is dealing with the distractions and
psychological "clutter" of the computer environment -- which is in
part, as someone observed, the huge number of choices leading to all
sorts of artificial and perpetual decision angst that really
shouldn't be necessary.
(You get around that by taking a day or longer break before you get
too deep into those mental "loops". You use the perfect recall to
come back later -- days, weeks -- when you are fresh. That's the
single thing I love the most about digital mix.)
IMO, much of running things ITB has to do with how we adjust our
"human information" processors, and how we set the work flow to take
maximum advantage of the good portions of what the environment offers.
Another part is getting a minimally-usable working environment from
day one, such as plenty of display real-estate.
Having said all that, I think us old folks actually have it easier,
once we overcome our misgivings, because many of us started out on
four or eight tracks, in *very expensive* environments (studio and
musician costs). We learned straight-away how to be efficient and not
navel-gaze.
Contrast this to someone who always had 128 tracks, a garage studio
with an entry cost of 1/100 of what it was 30 years ago, and you can
see where many of the workflow problems arise. Those old "primitive"
settings were perfect training grounds; if I were king I'd make the
kids live in one of those environments for a while to really grasp
how to keep things flowing before they moved over to
digital.
When we learn how to recast that ability to be efficient and make
decisions on top of a new tool set, it's the best of both worlds, at
least it has been for me.
I was dragged kicking and sceaming into that new world. But now that
I'm
there, I can't imagine going back.
YMMV, of course. Do what makes you happy and keeps the clients happy,
but also realize that sometimes a little irritation can pay dividends
later.
Frank
Mobile Audio
Excellent post. Really captures my experience. Sounds like we both started
out about the same time although my path diverged from yours later. I spent
about a decade in the analogue world; with other studio engineers we built
our first three-track from components from 2-track and mono Presto decks
plus a custom made head stack. Then a four-track from re-cycled Ampex 350
components. And, so on, progressing through off-the-shelf 8, 16, & 24 track
machines to interlocked 24s. It was interesting to track the average
per-project customer billings over time. As we added more tracks and more
and more outboard equipment, billable time increased exponentially. My
colleagues and I often asked ourselves if the quality of our recordings was
increasing, were we happier with our 24-tack mixes than with earlier mixes
of similar arrangements, did the days of over-dubbing and mixing time save
money vs. hiring additional musicians for the original sessions, etc.
Generally, we concluded that our earlier sessions and mixes were just as
satisfying...maybe more so. Certainly, the personal satisfaction of
recording most of the instruments and even vocals simultaneously was much
greater than what we felt after interminable hours of overdubs and mixing
and re-thinking every little detail. Of course, it helped that we had a
studio that accomodated as many as 20 musicians, a Studio B to isolate
vocals or strings, and at least one second engineer to set up, tweak mic
placement, and handle the other chores of apprenticeship. Now, my recording
is mostly limited to spoken word and associated production to created sound
tracks and commercials, all done in a DAW. And, I, too, would never
consider going back to tape and a razor blade.
Steve King