Posted in: Music Making by clavier on August 31, 2009 | 3 Comments
There are some really strange commonly held opinions about music technology. Most of these have been accepted as truth for decades. Trouble is, a lot of these notions are just complete crap! Here are a few of those myths in sound recording. According to Fett, a Technology Editor these remain to be myths.
In the past, there might have been a closer correlation between the price of a piece of gear and the quality of the sound it produced, but that is far less true today. That’s partly because gear makers have simply learned better ways of designing and building things, and partly because manufacturing processes are far more consistent now. “You can make cheap gear sound amazing, but you can also make expensive gear sound like crap; it’s all in how you use it, not what it costs.” says Fett. The point here is that experience, care, attention to detail (such as getting good, hot levels) and, most importantly, using your ears all play a much greater role in your overall sound than the cost of the gear. Close your eyes, listen closely, and ignore the price tags.
If this is true, then why do all those old, 3-track analog Beatles recordings still sound so incredible, even by today’s “elevated” sonic standards? One of the saddest and most bizarre aspects of the “gear envy” phenomenon is that we assume when a new technology comes out, all previous technology is somehow not as good. Do not be carried away by advertising hypes saying that older machines are bad sounding. “I say that’s ridiculous!” says Fett. “Yes, the latest machines may have more features, maybe more conventient to operate and to maintain, and actually sound better enough to render their predecessors obsolete. It isn’t automatic. We should trust our instincts when we listen to an older piece of gear. If we think it still sounds good– it probably does!
Some of us fall into the temptation of imparting “magical powers” to gear, making us believe that if we can only buy that fill-in-the-blank, then we’ll play, write, or sing better. Bull! The way to be a better creator or performer is to create and perform as much as possible, plain and simple. Sure, digital editing, quantization, pitch correction and other new tricks might partially make up for our own technical inadequacies in the final product, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the result is better music. There is still no substitute for good musicality and performance skills, no matter what the product literature might tell you.
Jesse Gimbel September 14th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
I’ve kind of got mixed feelings about this article, as it’s debunking things that it seems like people might not have thought since the 80s or 90s. Myth #2 for example, people have incredible lust for vintage gear, hence its’ ever-rising price. A studio full of older gear is often considered much more desirable than one with a bunch of new things. Myth #5 as well, if anything, people think digital sucks and analog is great, and this article could defend digital rather than analog. Absolutely right that they are just different and have to be treated that way, but I’ve never met (or even heard of) someone who hated the sound of analog but loved the sound of digital. So the article seems a little backwards. Maybe it needs an update and it’d be more informative! Letting people know how to make digital sound analog would help out tons of folks!
keyboardologist September 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Very good points here. I have played with some guys that have the “dream rig,” the best of the best instruments, and can’t play a simple three chord pattern to save their lives!. I also agree with using what sounds good, like a tube amp if you want that “warm” sound, or a vintage keyboard for those big fat analog string sounds.
Failed Muso December 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 am
A nice article! One other music tech myth is the one that surrounds the world of sampling. In recent years, many sample providers have released increasingly bloated libraries in “24bit/96KHz resolution” and shouting about the mountains of GB’s they contain.
In reality, 24bit, whilst giving slightly more head room in the recording process, serves you no better than properly recorded 16bit/44.1KHz samples. Sure, a Bosendorfer sampled at 24/96 will sound a bit better in isolation, but the chances are you are going to mix it up with a bunch of other instruments and then put the whole lot on a CD that uses 16/44.1.
And the bloated libraries, boasting of vast GB’s of sample data are actually very poorly recorded and programmed products where the samples are unlooped, recorded at an unecessary resolution, left with long tails and don’t use proper sample programming techniques that could achieve identical or better results. It’s just sheer laziness and a marketers way of saying “we must be better because we are bigger”.
Sadly, the punters believe this and they use it for an excuse for yet another willy waving contest amongst other brainwashed fools ;o)