Inflames626
New member
Do you think those mics are distinguishable from modeling software at this point?
All this also comes back to the quality of the mic capturing the performance before the software even does its work.
Why don't singers have signature mics?
- Thread starter Inflames626
- Start date
Do you think those mics are distinguishable from modeling software at this point?
All this also comes back to the quality of the mic capturing the performance before the software even does its work.
Inflames626
New member
That, and they got caught cheating.
Funny thing is...'cheating' is the rule now in live music, rather than a scandal (at least at the upper end).
Inflames626
New member
We have come to rely upon and demand the Autotune and backing tracks we once condemned. People would be disappointed if they didn't hear the record live.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Yes, absolutely. Not every nuance can be modeled or captured by software at this point. Not that modeled can't sound good, but if you own both and A/B them, you can definitely and immediately tell the difference. That's why studios still keep mic lockers. Same applies to reverbs, guitar amps models or anything that's been modeled.
Inflames626
New member
Have to keep the originals to record samples and have models for the modelers.
i 100% agree. modeling is amazing, but not quite the same as the real thing. and that applies to most everything, though it keeps getting better
beaubrummels
Well-known member
You're talking about the software companies that make modeled software. That's not how it is in a working studio. You use the best you've got, and software modeling isn't it. Only less critical tracks would ever use pure modeling.
Inflames626
New member
I don't even want to see the source code in a plugin for modeling an electrical circuit and how that affects tone.
My head would explode.
It's amazing the programs are as small as they are.
Inflames626
New member
Yes, but once cost is considered and whether the average listener can tell the difference listening through earbuds, I'm not sure the actual hardware has as much of an edge over software then. How many streams on Spotify does it take to recoup the cost of a single Neumann U87?
We've been degrading the audio quality of our tracks through MP3s for 25+ years now. There will always be audiophiles but for most people I'm not sure they care whether real hardware or software emulation is used.
There are very few real studios with real hardware left. They depend upon the software companies, home recordists, and motion picture industry to keep the lights on and doors open. Only the biggest names are going to get to record in a real proper physical environment with great gear.
Most people would probably be tricked to find out just what cheap gear was used on their favorite records, or what production tricks were used as workarounds for budget limitations.
I seem to remember a story about Judas Priest recording "Metal Gods" from "British Steel." They wanted to emulate the sound of marching feet. So they shook a silverware drawer, mic'ed it, and recorded it. I thought it was clever.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Choice of equipment isn't about what the average listener can distinguish. Audio tracks get remixed, remastered, used in commercials, movie soundtracks, transferred to differing audio formats when the tech changes in the future, etc., so the source tracks have to be the highest quality. What the consumer gets is a separate matter. Just because MP3 are compressed low-quality, doesn't mean the source tracks can be recorded at that same low quality. You are talking like a consumer, but you clearly aren't familiar with what goes on in studios. And yes plenty of them exist; real studios with real hardware.
Software companies and home recording amateurs have nothing to do with keeping the lights on in professional recording facilities. When an act opts for software emulations or alternate methods, it's usually one of several things: 1) the tracks aren't critical to the overall final, or 2) they are pressed for time, or 3) they are being paid to use some sponsored tech and evaluate it, or 4) they are partners in the development of said technology.
The Judas Priest anecdote has nothing to do with the topic. Simulating sounds has been done in audio for as long as motion pictures have been made: it's called "Foley".
Inflames626
New member
"Choice of equipment isn't about what the average listener can distinguish."
Project budget trumps this and will be the most important determiner of equipment choice. Shrinking profit margins for recorded music shrink project budgets. Increased logistics costs for touring decreases profit margins further. If money can be saved in the recording process by dying record labels who no longer have "Hysteria" sized recording budgets to loan out, so be it, especially if the listener can't tell the difference and doesn't really care.
Choice of equipment also important after you have recorded and you are sending to someone else to mix/master. You have to make sure your project will meet their technical requirements and fit well into their workflow.
"Audio tracks get remixed, remastered, used in commercials, movie soundtracks, transferred to differing audio formats when the tech changes in the future, etc., so the source tracks have to be the highest quality."
They don't have to be. It is preferred that they be highest quality possible. Financially, there is a diminishing return past a certain point. Higher budget projects will get higher quality source material. This is why there is always the argument about sample rate/bit depth/hard drive size trade off and whether it is worth it since things can only be downsampled, not upsampled. Enter endless debates about the Nyquist Theorem.
Everything you listed applies to higher project budgets and the way the old recording industry made money. Artists thinking about high quality, expensive originals and the expensive gear required to produce them puts the cart before the horse. Before recording a high quality original, they need to think about how they are going to recoup a profit. They will need publishing and licensing deals, legal and financial representation, membership in a group like ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, etc., before there is demand for their works to be used in commercials and soundtracks in the first place.
The vast majority of your recording done today is not going to need as high a quality original as what you are seeking, especially considering cost. We are more likely looking at streaming on YouTube and Soundcloud here, not licensing to a film. Spotify wants 320 kbps mp3. 48khz 24 bit is preferred for many streaming services and what I currently record in.
And we haven't even gotten into PCM vs. DSD.
"What the consumer gets is a separate matter." What the consumer gets is intimately tied to the entire process. If what the consumer gets is severely downgraded audio, and fewer and fewer consumers are audiophiles, the financial sacrifice for a higher quality source material makes less and less sense. We cannot easily predict what future technology will be, but it doesn't look good for audio quality. Even with increased bandwidth and hard drive sizes mp3s don't look to be replaced by WAVs anytime soon.
"Just because MP3 are compressed low-quality, doesn't mean the source tracks can be recorded at that same low quality."
Right, but it also means that if the consumer has a severely degraded end product and are happy with it, they are not going to be particularly desirous of a high quality original. Once again, a high quality original is a desired luxury, not a given. At some point, the nice gear required to make it will simply not be worth it and will no longer be produced.
"You are talking like a consumer, but you clearly aren't familiar with what goes on in studios. And yes plenty of them exist; real studios with real hardware."
GIT grad 1999-2000. Toured RIT studios there. Toured Middle Tennessee State recording arts facilities 2005. Toured Full Sail University facilities in Winter Park, FL, 2006. Music consumers are self-publishing producers now. That was formerly not the case.
Studio closures: https://www.nme.com/news/music/near...ntly-close-without-government-support-2660033
NPR article from 2009. It was dire even then: https://www.npr.org/2009/12/10/121304883/recording-studios-face-uncertain-future
100 room studio closing in LA 2022: https://laist.com/news/arts-and-ent...hurdles-but-structural-issues-close-its-doors
How Covid hurt studios in 2020: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvgwd5/coronavirus-has-left-recording-studios-in-limbo
In short: big, expensive studios are a dying industry saved for big budget projects and famous artists. Studios have a vested interest in feeding software companies with high quality content to make up for the fewer artists who are recording in those studios.
"Software companies and home recording amateurs have nothing to do with keeping the lights on in professional recording facilities. When an act opts for software emulations or alternate methods, it's usually one of several things: 1) the tracks aren't critical to the overall final, or 2) they are pressed for time, or 3) they are being paid to use some sponsored tech and evaluate it, or 4) they are partners in the development of said technology."
1) Software companies and amateurs are replacing artists as customers for these studios. If an emulated "non-critical" track can be blended into a real hardware track in a mix and no one can tell the difference, there is a less compelling reason for that expensive original gear.
2) They may be pressed for time. The studio is going to be pressed for clients. Who runs out of money first, the artist or the studio? The studio will also cut its overhead by increasingly relying on cloud based software instead of purchasing expensive hardware units that it cannot afford.
3) All the more reason for studios to partner with software emulations, which get sold more than expensive hardware units since there are fewer studios to house those units, A good example would be NYC Avatar Studios partnering with Superior Drummer. Helps the studio promote itself and give it work by recording the samples and it gives Toontrack the prestige of a famous studio to back its flagship product. I mean, Berkelee's next door.
4) Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. With fewer studios and fewer acts able to afford real studios, real studios have to partner to develop software and technology to make up the shortfall of artists recording in their studios. This software and technology is then sold to technologists, hobbyists, home recordists, etc., the real backbone of the music industry now.
"The Judas Priest anecdote has nothing to do with the topic. Simulating sounds has been done in audio for as long as motion pictures have been made: it's called "Foley".
The Judas Priest anecdote had everything to do with the topic because it demonstrated a shortcut in production to get around a technical/financial hurdle during recording--something people are doing now with software.
The contention here is you feel the real equipment is better and thus "worth it." I agree to some extent. However, given financial pressures on the music industry, software emulations make more and more sense. Listeners are less willing to spend money on recorded music and they are less concerned about audio quality. Further, the old studio model is dying, cannot be resuscitated, and will probably not come back in the future on the scale it was before the 2000s.
The approach you're taking is like favoring a master sculpture over a 3D printer. I understand and appreciate why that would be done. But it makes less and less financial sense, and the end user isn't going to be able to tell the difference.
Project budget trumps this and will be the most important determiner of equipment choice. Shrinking profit margins for recorded music shrink project budgets. Increased logistics costs for touring decreases profit margins further. If money can be saved in the recording process by dying record labels who no longer have "Hysteria" sized recording budgets to loan out, so be it, especially if the listener can't tell the difference and doesn't really care.
Choice of equipment also important after you have recorded and you are sending to someone else to mix/master. You have to make sure your project will meet their technical requirements and fit well into their workflow.
"Audio tracks get remixed, remastered, used in commercials, movie soundtracks, transferred to differing audio formats when the tech changes in the future, etc., so the source tracks have to be the highest quality."
They don't have to be. It is preferred that they be highest quality possible. Financially, there is a diminishing return past a certain point. Higher budget projects will get higher quality source material. This is why there is always the argument about sample rate/bit depth/hard drive size trade off and whether it is worth it since things can only be downsampled, not upsampled. Enter endless debates about the Nyquist Theorem.
Everything you listed applies to higher project budgets and the way the old recording industry made money. Artists thinking about high quality, expensive originals and the expensive gear required to produce them puts the cart before the horse. Before recording a high quality original, they need to think about how they are going to recoup a profit. They will need publishing and licensing deals, legal and financial representation, membership in a group like ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, etc., before there is demand for their works to be used in commercials and soundtracks in the first place.
The vast majority of your recording done today is not going to need as high a quality original as what you are seeking, especially considering cost. We are more likely looking at streaming on YouTube and Soundcloud here, not licensing to a film. Spotify wants 320 kbps mp3. 48khz 24 bit is preferred for many streaming services and what I currently record in.
And we haven't even gotten into PCM vs. DSD.
"What the consumer gets is a separate matter." What the consumer gets is intimately tied to the entire process. If what the consumer gets is severely downgraded audio, and fewer and fewer consumers are audiophiles, the financial sacrifice for a higher quality source material makes less and less sense. We cannot easily predict what future technology will be, but it doesn't look good for audio quality. Even with increased bandwidth and hard drive sizes mp3s don't look to be replaced by WAVs anytime soon.
"Just because MP3 are compressed low-quality, doesn't mean the source tracks can be recorded at that same low quality."
Right, but it also means that if the consumer has a severely degraded end product and are happy with it, they are not going to be particularly desirous of a high quality original. Once again, a high quality original is a desired luxury, not a given. At some point, the nice gear required to make it will simply not be worth it and will no longer be produced.
"You are talking like a consumer, but you clearly aren't familiar with what goes on in studios. And yes plenty of them exist; real studios with real hardware."
GIT grad 1999-2000. Toured RIT studios there. Toured Middle Tennessee State recording arts facilities 2005. Toured Full Sail University facilities in Winter Park, FL, 2006. Music consumers are self-publishing producers now. That was formerly not the case.
Studio closures: https://www.nme.com/news/music/near...ntly-close-without-government-support-2660033
NPR article from 2009. It was dire even then: https://www.npr.org/2009/12/10/121304883/recording-studios-face-uncertain-future
100 room studio closing in LA 2022: https://laist.com/news/arts-and-ent...hurdles-but-structural-issues-close-its-doors
How Covid hurt studios in 2020: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvgwd5/coronavirus-has-left-recording-studios-in-limbo
In short: big, expensive studios are a dying industry saved for big budget projects and famous artists. Studios have a vested interest in feeding software companies with high quality content to make up for the fewer artists who are recording in those studios.
"Software companies and home recording amateurs have nothing to do with keeping the lights on in professional recording facilities. When an act opts for software emulations or alternate methods, it's usually one of several things: 1) the tracks aren't critical to the overall final, or 2) they are pressed for time, or 3) they are being paid to use some sponsored tech and evaluate it, or 4) they are partners in the development of said technology."
1) Software companies and amateurs are replacing artists as customers for these studios. If an emulated "non-critical" track can be blended into a real hardware track in a mix and no one can tell the difference, there is a less compelling reason for that expensive original gear.
2) They may be pressed for time. The studio is going to be pressed for clients. Who runs out of money first, the artist or the studio? The studio will also cut its overhead by increasingly relying on cloud based software instead of purchasing expensive hardware units that it cannot afford.
3) All the more reason for studios to partner with software emulations, which get sold more than expensive hardware units since there are fewer studios to house those units, A good example would be NYC Avatar Studios partnering with Superior Drummer. Helps the studio promote itself and give it work by recording the samples and it gives Toontrack the prestige of a famous studio to back its flagship product. I mean, Berkelee's next door.
4) Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. With fewer studios and fewer acts able to afford real studios, real studios have to partner to develop software and technology to make up the shortfall of artists recording in their studios. This software and technology is then sold to technologists, hobbyists, home recordists, etc., the real backbone of the music industry now.
"The Judas Priest anecdote has nothing to do with the topic. Simulating sounds has been done in audio for as long as motion pictures have been made: it's called "Foley".
The Judas Priest anecdote had everything to do with the topic because it demonstrated a shortcut in production to get around a technical/financial hurdle during recording--something people are doing now with software.
The contention here is you feel the real equipment is better and thus "worth it." I agree to some extent. However, given financial pressures on the music industry, software emulations make more and more sense. Listeners are less willing to spend money on recorded music and they are less concerned about audio quality. Further, the old studio model is dying, cannot be resuscitated, and will probably not come back in the future on the scale it was before the 2000s.
The approach you're taking is like favoring a master sculpture over a 3D printer. I understand and appreciate why that would be done. But it makes less and less financial sense, and the end user isn't going to be able to tell the difference.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
You can tour all the studios you want. You don't sound like you've ever worked in one.
Inflames626
New member
I never said I did work in one. Nor did I disagree with you that a high quality original recorded with the best gear is a bad thing, especially for archival purposes.
The approach is just an increasingly impractical one. It makes less and less sense when it costs more to record most music than what it can profitably sell for.
Maybe new music can make money eventually through licensing, but that's for big names, and the return on investment is going to take decades the higher the recording budget is--recording budgets cash strapped labels are less likely to pay for and bands are less able to pay back to those labels via touring.
Meanwhile, the cost of producing such expensive gear and the buildings used to house it isn't getting any cheaper.
The lack of working in studios also comes from a problem with Berkelee/MTSU/Full Sail/MI's business models. They will most likely train far more producers and engineers than they can find employment for after graduation, and those grads have fewer ways to pay for that expensive schooling in the first place.
It's an on-the-job training, who you know business, often centered in big, expensive cities, and a relatively small industry.
That considered, I'm very happy with software emulations, and I'm glad I didn't spend more money in the 90s collecting gear that I can now emulate to my satisfaction.
Much respect for you, beaubrummels. I appreciate your effort and time.
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
When some members were having trouble with VST plugins in Audacity and Waveform, I did some source code analysis. Not surprisingly, they were both very clean. Open-source software is typically more modular and architecturally stable than commercial software. That being said, you are correct the VST plugins being commercially manufactured are most likely a mess and are the cause of most DAW headaches.
If my plugins are working I tend not to upgrade them unless there is a rollback feature. Software gets worse over time not better.
Inflames626
New member
I mean, at some point, we are using assembly code and compilers written decades ago. Stuff just gets added on top of stuff without people going back to look at low level code.
I think this is why a lot of hardware drivers can be so bad about BSODs.
Inflames626
New member
The most upfront, transparent kind of modeling I've seen might be in Revalver 3 or so, where you can design your own amp. I'd like to think that happens with other plugins in the source code but is concealed.
That said I think some emulations are more faithful than others and are just marketing hype, even if they are licensed.
I mean, are we down to emulating pot tolerance spec variation for audio and linear tapers in the source code yet? Something tells me it isn't that complex since it would require some disassembly and reverse engineering of very expensive hardware. Emulating the electro-mechanical aspects of old gear in code, I suppose.
I'd more like to think we can adjust stuff variables on the real gear, analyze how to works on a waveform, and then emulate that rate of change in code and call it emulated.
That said I think some emulations are more faithful than others and are just marketing hype, even if they are licensed.
I mean, are we down to emulating pot tolerance spec variation for audio and linear tapers in the source code yet? Something tells me it isn't that complex since it would require some disassembly and reverse engineering of very expensive hardware. Emulating the electro-mechanical aspects of old gear in code, I suppose.
I'd more like to think we can adjust stuff variables on the real gear, analyze how to works on a waveform, and then emulate that rate of change in code and call it emulated.
