Mixing Console vs. Control Surface

Over the last few weeks, it has occurred to me a frightening number of times that quite a few engineers don’t really know the difference between an analog mixing console and a control surface. People are so concerned with not using a mouse to mix, that I’m not sure they understand what the faders under their fingers are doing.

First, what is a control surface? It looks the same as a mixing console. It might even feel the same as a console. But what is it really? What does it actually do? Most control surfaces connect to a computer via USB, firewire, or Ethernet. The purpose of these units is to ‘control’ a DAW on your computer. So, when you push the fader up or turn a knob, is the control surface changing the parameter? No, the DAW is changing it, just like it would if you were using a mouse! In fact, it may be even more difficult to get around many plug-ins with a control surface because you need to cycle through all of the editable parameters. With a mouse you can just point, click, and drag. You can even double click and type in an amount on certain plug-ins. But the control surface doesn’t do anything your mouse can’t do! Boil it down to this: having a control surface is equivalent to having a separate mouse available to most every task you need your DAW to perform. Sounds cool, yes.

But now, what is a mixing console? They have lots of faders and knobs just like a control surface. But the biggest difference is that it does not control your DAW and most of the time it is not even connected to your computer. Every channel of audio you may be mixing in your DAW will come out of your computer separately and into discrete tracks of a mixing console. The audio actually enters the console as an electrical signal. From there, that electrical signal is altered as needed on each channel. It can also be routed through your console to other gear and returned for later summing. The important distinction is that the audio actually goes through the mixing console, while no audio ever hits a control surface.

Both units are worth having in some respects. For example, it is much easier to write automation to your DAW with a control surface than with a mouse and keyboard. Both units provide workspaces that all touch to handle the decisions, much like how audio was handled before the DAW. A good mixing console can also provide a great analog warmth and tone. I really don’t have any complaints about engineers taking their pick of console or surface, as long as they aren’t spending more than $10,000 on them. Yes, there are some great mixing consoles out there for under 10k, but the cost to interface them into a digital computer based system can be very expensive. A nice control surface can be had for under $10k and is very easy to interface. My real question is why do some people spend $100,000 and up on just a control surface? And not just a control surface, but only a 32 or 48 channel surface! That amount of money can buy a highly sought after console, all of the I/O you need, and give you an amazing sound that no plug-in can come close to. I just don’t get it. Why waste $100k on what essentially boils down to a bunch of mice? If I had that much money, I’d get an 8-track control surface to write automation, etc. but buy a great mixing console and make some great records!

Don’t let the faders and knobs fool you! Mixing consoles and control surfaces are not equal!

Is Pro Tools HD a Dinosaur?

Thoughts like these have been popping into my head every once in a while for the past year or so.  Up until that point, I had been running my Pro Tools LE rig off of a 5 year old laptop.  A 2 GHz single core processor and 2Gs of ram just didn’t seem to be doing the trick.  The computer would hang up just bouncing a pair of tracks with some processing.  Recording live into the machine just wasn’t a good idea (it had already crashed on a live gig).  So… really the only thing it was good at was editing.  My thinking was, “If I want a really stable and powerful computer recording rig, I need PT HD.” Knowing that I can’t afford an HD rig now, I bought a new PC desktop system with just a reasonable amount of power.  The idea was I could continue running PT LE on a more powerful system, but also have the expandability necessary should HD become an option.

The first time I brought up Pro Tools on the new PC, I loaded a medium sized mixing session.  It was 24 tracks with some 40 or so plug-ins active.  My previous laptop couldn’t even play back the session with all of those plugs.  The new system ran it smoothly and with ease!  If I remember correctly, my system usage was only around 30%!  I took this to mean that I could reasonably expect this system to run a 48 track session (probably from 2 hard drives) with around 80 plug-ins with no problem.  And then I started thinking… just how many people need more than that?  And for those people, there are much much more powerful systems out there…

Two engineers that I very highly respect run their studios entirely from one HD24.  They haven’t felt the need for a computer or extensive digital editing.  And they haven’t even felt the need from more than 24 channels!  Of course they could easily sync another HD24 if they wanted, but they haven’t even done that.  Then you read about the ‘great’ mixing engineers around the country; they normally comp everything down to 48 channels max.  Projects may come in with 100+ tracks, but they still comp everything down to fit on their console.

So, now that we’ve eliminated the need for mass amounts of tracks for most recording situations, where does PT HD come in?  Yes, it has ADC.  Yes, you can have potentially unlimited ins and outs.  Yes, it seems like HD and similar systems are the only way to efficiently mix from digital to analog.  But what’s stopping a company like Digidesign from incorporating ADC into an LE system?  What’s stopping them from designing a new firewire interface that can run at least 24 analog ins and outs.  The computers today can handle it!  When HD was designed, computers could only do a handful of tracks, and so it was the ONLY solution for mass computer recording.  But now, things have changed.

To me, there is no reason for an HD system to still be as expensive as it is.  The technology is old.  Other companies have built similar systems that sell for half the price!  But moreover, it no longer is the only alternative for computer recording.  It doesn’t hold the monopoly anymore.  Is Digidesign just trying to capitalize on the few HD buyers that might be left?  The benefits of HD really don’t outweigh the cost anymore.  Unless, you are running a studio that needs more than 48 or 64 ins simultaneously, there seems to be no reason to get HD.  Of course, there are definitely studios that need hundreds of tracks.  In those cases the situation is different.  But I’d say a good 90% of people in the audio business don’t need that.  Is Pro Tools HD just a dying breed of computer recording?  And why hasn’t Digidesign, or any other company, built a new product that really takes advantage of today’s computer power?

The One Rule of Recording

People always ask, “What do I need to do to make my recordings sound professional?”  Or, “What rules can I follow to do ‘blah blah blah’ with ‘blah blah’?”

The truth is, there are no binding rules in recording.  Yes, there are techniques that will usually yield certain results.  But the only rule is to keep listening!  Just because one engineer used a certain technique doesn’t mean you should.  It doesn’t mean it will be the best solution for your problem.  For example, many engineers stand by the ‘cut first’ rule – always cut with an eq because it sounds more natural that way.  I followed that for a while, but to be honest, there are many times I can’t get the sound I want by cutting.  Sometimes I need to boost by as much as 15dB!

If you’re an artist looking to record, don’t trust an engineer who puts presets on everything or who seems to have prebuilt templates for everything.  That’s not engineering, it’s copying someone else’s work.  Not only that, but presets are never the correct solution to mix problems.  You want to work with an engineer who’s not afraid to be different.

Recording is just as a creative art form as composing… let’s keep it that way.

Paul McCartney plays the NYC streets!

It took 40 years, but history has been made once again by Paul McCartney. He performed on top of the marquis of the Ed Sullivan Theatre in New York City on July 15, 2009. The quick set was reminiscent of the concert the Beatles played on the rooftop of the Apple building in London, 1969. It was filmed as a part of “Let it Be” but was never officially released. Here and there you can find snippets of the concert. I was able to see the film in its entirety at ‘Beatlefest’ years ago in Chicago.

Paul McCartney and The Beatles were the biggest musical icons of my childhood. It’s a tad strange, but cool, that they could be the heroes of a 90s kid and also the heroes of a 60s kid. Their music has been immortalized, and rightfully so I believe. The lyrics still speak to us today. The music still moves us. In fact, if you browse the vast musical literature written by the Lennon/McCartney duo, you can find a song for nearly everything, every circumstance known to man.

I praise Paul for keeping the music living through live performance. So many artists either can’t, or just refuse, to play their older but legendary material. Paul never tires of it. He is always eager to share once again with every listener. It’s not every day that a person can watch and listen to a person who helped radically change the face of popular music. Here are some links to a portion of the Beatles rooftop concert in London, as well as Paul’s recent set in New York.

 http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/music/watch/v254009KXqmsZdc#

 http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2009/07/mccartney_gives_surprise_rooft.html?sc=nl&cc=asc-20090716

A Breath of Fresh Air – Sugarland

Just a few days ago I watched a broadcast of country/pop band ‘Sugarland’.  I recognized the name from something before… the Grammys tend to come to mind, but I’m not quite sure.  Deciding to give them a shot, I eagerly listened to the first song of their set.  Stunning.  I kept listening.  The show just got better and better.  Not only did Jennifer and Kristian give flawless and touching performances, but the entire band sounded like a group of All-Stars.

The songwriting was something I especially wanted to discuss.  Their song “Stay” exhibits many conventional pop song techniques, but the structure and lyrics really make it stand out in my mind.  The song tells such an emotional story, and it really draws every listener in.  People can connect with the message.  And finally, the kicker, the song closes with a reversed chorus where the lyrics are kept nearly the same yet mean the complete opposite.  Clever!

I guess I had given up trying to find popular artists that could really write and perform.  It was a pleasant surprise to ‘discover’ this group, even though they are enjoying quite a following.

I sincerely hope that more and more artists will follow this lead.  So much popular music is old and hackneyed that its getting boring to listen to.  But this… this is good music.  This is something I can listen to today and for years to come.  I want more!

http://www.sugarlandmusic.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIyxkZod2cM&feature=channel

Lack of Consumer Education = Poor Products

Is there a disturbing trend of business people in general who… can’t or just don’t understand business, their product/service, or how to perform that service?  Of course I’m basing this on mostly recent experiences with people in the music industry.  However, it does not seem confined to those professions.  What good does a product or service do if those who purchase it don’t get ‘perfect’ or useable results?  For example, a faulty DVD?  Or maybe a less than stellar mix or master of your recording?  You may say… well that’s absurd; both of those examples are so so different!

A few days ago I was listening to a new song by a friend of mine.  She’s a pianist and signer and fairly recently has starting getting into pop composing.  I suppose the recording was made decently.  It sounded alright for the most part.  But I would feel differently had I not known something about the engineer: he just built a completely new studio, from the ground up.  I had been hearing the stories for months and months.  And with all the talk, I was expecting something quite spectacular to come.  But then this… this… mediocre job.  Not to be arrogant or toot my own horn, but I’ve made much better recordings in environments with NO acoustical treatment.  I’ve made recordings in essentially living rooms in homes that sound better than the final product that came from this new ‘studio’.  Ok… maybe the guy didn’t know a ton about acoustics.  He should still know how to put a microphone in front of a guitar cab.  He should still know how to deal with less than perfect rooms.  And he should still know how to mix!

My question is, how in the world did someone, who does no work other than audio engineering, raise the capital to fund a building project like this when he can’t record or mix!  The results of his work should sound professional, not amateur!  What’s worse is that people can’t see (or hear) the fault in these recordings like they can tell when a DVD doesn’t work.  But there’s really no difference.

How can consumers pour money into these people who don’t understand the business?  It’s not just in music and you know it too.  What has happened to the educated consumer?  Why don’t people really care about the final product they receive?  They are throwing their money to people without really knowing why or what to expect.  How can any business expect to be successful when the consumer doesn’t care enough to do a bit of research and find how who they should hire?  A large portion of this is marketing, but are people today really dumb enough to believe every single thing they are told?!

The Art of Mixing: Past and Present

I recently brought a few mixes of a local band over to a fellow engineer’s studio for a listen.  I guess you could say he’s an ‘old school’ kinda guy – started in New York City working on multitrack tape, long before the days of digital recording.  Upon listening, the very first comment he had was, “There’s almost no depth in this.”  I took a minute to think.  He asked, “Can you hear that?”  Of course I could, I just hadn’t realized it.  Everything in the mix was upfront and ‘in your face’ so to speak.  But I had mixed it that way on purpose, using other modern type mixes as references.  After listening to a few tracks, he put on an lp of one of the first cuts he mixed in the 70s.  There was way too much reverb for today’s standards, but it was true that everything sat much better three-dimensionally.

 That short conversation got me thinking and critically listening to more classic rock tracks.  It seems you can really hear the room, whether real or fake, in most recordings up until the mid 80s.  Instruments and parts are cleverly placed not only left to right, but front to back.  Nothing is so far forward that it ‘screams’ at you.  When you listen to more modern mixes, barely any of the parts get pushed back in the mix.  Everything is up front and competing for the same space.  Occasionally a backing instrument or two will be heard behind the main mix.

 It was always my impression that modern mixes sound bigger than those of the past.  But does all this competing sound just create an illusion of big sound?  Are the old mixes actually fuller and more complete?

 Just food for thought… I like the dryness of modern mixes.  But at the same time, the way older mixes breathe can be quite refreshing.

 Thoughts??