Upgrade news and first impressions - From Pro Tools HD3 to HD Native

This post might only be of interest to music tech geeks and it gets a bit tech-y, but hey, that's my business and I'll make no apologies ;)

This week we underwent a major overhaul of our recording system. The reasons for this are numerous - our old Mac Pro was starting to show it's age (even though we were on a HD3 system stuffed with DSP's for running plugins and mixer), Avid have just announced that the next Pro Tools software update will no longer support our HD cards or 192io audio interfaces and the ongoing march of native processing now offers a realistic alternative to DSP performance in terms of both plugin capability and audio latency. Another bonus is the fact that native plugins tend to be cheaper than their TDM counterparts. In fact, this upgrade is largely in the name of long term savings. As native processing progresses, the requirements of our clients stay largely static. We are at the stage where track counts are unlikely to increase dramatically for bands. We already work with sessions containing over 100 tracks and can take liberties using multiple microphones on guitar cabs and drums, adding various ambient microphones when tracking and comping the varying levels of vocal parts across numerous channels. We rarely run low on effects plugins and if we do, we simply bounce a few tracks down - at the end of a mix, it's unlikely you'll be changing that organ sound that you arrived at during the first day of recording.

Essentially, how much more power are we likely to need?

Going native and ditching the extra power afforded by TDM was still a risk so rather than place all of our eggs in one CPU we did decide to take some load off the computer by adding a UAD2 Quad Omni card (more on this later). So the new system looks like this:

• Mac Pro, Quad Core 2.8Ghz, 24gb RAM
• Pro Tools HD Native
• UAD2 Quad card with Omni plugin pack
• 2 x Avid HD 8in 8out audio interfaces
• Expansion card adding an extra 8 analog inputs to one of the audio interfaces

The reasons for this configuration are as follows:

Mac Pro

We opted for the 'entry level' quad core in the interests of price vs performance. The faster buss & RAM speeds coupled with a larger cache than previous quad core machines means that in benchmarks they clock in very well. I have also wanted a UAD2 since trying one over at White Town's studio so it seemed to make more sense to put the money into processing on the UAD2 rather than on a higher spec Mac. The massive 24gb RAM was installed in order to take advantage of future versions of Pro Tools that will be 64bit and able to address much larger amounts of RAM. The new Pro Tools 10 can already cache session audio into RAM, allowing for snappier performance and removing speed requirements for project drives - i.e. it is now possible to mix a session straight from a thumb drive!

Pro Tools HD Native Core

The Native HD card provides a small amount of DSP processing power to take a load off the native CPU and guarantee certain levels of performance in terms of track counts, latency and delay compensation. I would stick my neck out and say that nowadays, for anyone but the largest studios or for those doing big post production projects, HDX is probably overkill. The only caveat in this is latency when recording. Although the latency when tracking without complex routing and effects is virtually indistinguishable from that afforded by TDM systems, this will ramp up somewhat and pose problems if extra recording is deemed necessary in the latter stages of a large mix. Of course, the solution to this is simple - do a rough bounce of the mix and record to that in a new session, then import the new recordings back into the mix. This amounts to around 5 minutes of work bouncing a rough mix and setting up a new tracking session. It also saves you a few thousand pounds on a HDX system. Well done those economists amongst you.

UAD2 Quad Omni Bundle

This is quite possibly the best sounding marriage of plugins and processing power that I have yet heard. I won't claim to have past experience of all of the processors that are emulated here but their authenticity is irrelevant (although I can say the tape machines, Moog filter, Roland Space Echo and a few others that I have used are pretty spot on) as they sound fantastic, feel responsive and ooze character. There are many favourable reviews of the UAD2 systems so I'm not going to repeat those, suffice to say that I love it. It's probably the best piece of processing equipment I've found when considering quality and price. Not that it's cheap as such, just worth every penny.

Audio Interfaces

As we are working 'In the box' for the foreseeable future, we decided that there was no point in using three interfaces anymore. We still need up to 24 inputs occasionally but never 24 outputs. Therefore we down sized to two interfaces with an expansion card in one to give an extra 8 analog inputs. The new HD i/o interfaces also feature the 'Curv' soft limiter on each input which I'm interested to try although as a rule I never track hot signals to the converters. Might be good for an effect or as a safety for sources with wide dynamic range though.

Initial conclusions

We've now been working for a few days with the new setup and so far I've been blown away by each component. Upon opening a huge mix that we'd been working on previously to the point where it could barely play back, we found that we had CPU cycles to spare and RAM caching made playback instantaneous. The converters in the audio interfaces sound slightly 'fresher' and much clearer to my ears. It's not exactly a 'night & day' difference from the old 192's - which are still fantastic converters - but it is a welcome improvement. The UAD2 adds an extra cache of processing power but also a quality of sound across all of it's plugins that I've simply not found elsewhere. Everything feels more responsive and less linear. Driving inputs sounds as one would expect and many plugs have hidden controls to properly (or improperly) gain stage them or control extra functions not found in the original hardware.

It feels good to get off the Pro Tools TDM wagon. This was a major upgrade for us to undertake in the name of future compatibility really. Rather than having to get a new HDX system or equivalent in the future, I'm much happier to simply update to a new computer. DSP processing is a great addition to our system but in the grander scheme of things, it's an obsolete technology. Native processing will outgrow our requirements within the next few years and having a reliable, low maintenance, expandable recording system is a must to allow us to provide a service that keeps pace with clients expectations and allows us to be creative without restriction.

Why 'Industry Standard' is one of the most irrelevant terms in music...

The term 'industry standard' when applied to recorded music is a total bugbear of mine - here I'm going to explain why I care and why you as a musician/engineer/listener should too.

Let's first look at the meaning of the term and how it's applied. The 'industry' referred to is... shall we say "a little all encompassing". It's a convolution of radio, record companies, television and the mass media. It never had anything to do with music or musicians.

Here I should clarify about the use of the term that makes me foam at the gills. 'Industry Standard' is just another in a long line of recitations that are regularly wheeled out to tell musicians that they aren't good enough - and it works! Even now, when DIY releasing is easier than ever, I see so many bands who never put out any of their music. Sure, some of them get it recorded and maybe one or two tracks will see their way to a Myspace page or onto Soundcloud but there are still a hell of a lot of artists waiting for permission to release music. By permission I really mean validation - a record label to decide if it will sell and therefore if it's any good. Since when did one company (or indeed individual A&R at said bastion of taste) decide what universally makes music likeable? More to the point, why do the rest of us describe recordings on their terms?

Don't get me wrong, musicians need criticism and feedback but the only sources you need it from are yourself and your fans. The industry standard is something that doesn't concern you unless you're dealing with the kind of industry that uses the term - i.e. people that like selling music more than they like listening to it. You want your recordings to sound great? Fine, but make sure it's by your standards (more on their standards later in this post).

Unfortunately though, this term isn't used exclusively by Artie Fufkin of Polymer records or the legion of coke-addled, slick-haired yuppies that are the cheap target of every independent music nut (like me) when we want to complain about 'the majors'. It's used by people like me.

Studios, mastering engineers, producers, battle of the bands promoters, etc, etc... we're guilty in worse ways than 'the industry'. Just google "industry standard recording", it's all studios advertising and people asking about what equipment they need to attain this mystical standard. At this point I must hold my hands up and say I'm almost sure I've used this term before, trying to 'play the professional' in my early years as an engineer. This post isn't intended to be a dig at those who do use this turn of phrase, just a plea to consider the ramifications of the language and terminology we as professionals use to speak to our clients. We've been mis-selling a term that shouldn't apply to them in my opinion. At least it's in the traditional industry's interests to maintain the impression that there is a standard that all others can only aspire to without their resources (read money), but I would have hoped that we - the people who make the lions share of the real and democratic music scene actually happen - could rise above perpetuating a term that reinforces the idea that unless you sound a certain way, you're not a real musician. If you are a musician and someone uses that term then I believe you have every right to take offense. You know what good recordings sound like, all you need is someone with the right equipment and knowledge to achieve the sound you want.

How does it make sense for any studio/individual/microphone/hair product to claim that they can help an artist achieve an 'industry standard'? It's meaningless in the first place. What does an industry standard recording sound like?

If we're being technical, here's what industry standard recordings tend to sound like. Below is a video comparing the difference between the commercial, 'industry standard' CD release of a track from the latest Metallica album with the same track from Guitar Hero. You can hear how much more dynamic it sounds when the industry doesn't get a say in how a record is made. Try and listen to the high quality version if possible and here's a clue, listen for drums that actually punch out through the mix, doesn't that sound better?

More info on 'The Loudness War' is available via the Wikipedia Entry

My rounding off for this rant is just to ask that we all stop aspiring to this fictional world of 'playing with the big boys' and just let the industry standard disappear from our biographies, our sales patter and our aspirations as artists. It's vulgar, it patronises musicians, effects their output and we all deserve better than that, especially our fans.

I'd love to hear other opinions on this so feel free to add some thoughts in the comments.

Rob

The debate that goes nowhere

Recently I commented on this article that a friend of mine posted on Facebook:

Is YouTube destroying or saving music?

The discussion in her comments section (on Facebook, not the original article) between her and a friend seemed to come to the concensus that YouTube was a useful tool to find new music and listen before deciding whether to buy. I added that I found Spotify to be a similar concept, albeit one with a much higher sound quality and the option to subscribe to remove ads and listen on mobile devices. It's a great service, I can highly recommend it.

I thought this was great, I'm sick of reactionary condemnation of these areas of new technology. The major label system has suffered slightly from people being able to stream music for free (although much more from torrenting or Usenet which has been around for years) but as this graph shows - not by as much as they would claim when filing lawsuits against teenagers and dead people.

taken from Gizmodo

The part of this I want to talk about comes next - when another contributor put forward the following opinion:

Well I would say replace the words 'spotify' and 'youtube' with the word INTERNET!, no one goes out looking for new music any more which is killing the live music circuit and stopping new artists from being discovered. Another word you could use is THEFT, people are happy to download poor quality versions of the music they like because they get it for free. There's another word too FASHION, people are too afraid of being mocked for liking something different so they all buy the same crap even if they don't like it because they want to be part of the crowd. Finally there's the worst word of all ADVERTISING,every TV show, ad break, radio show, magazine, newspaper, bus stop Etc etc TELLS us the new album from' joe no one' is the best thing since sliced bread and way too many people fall for it. We all know there's a lot of talentless shites out there doing really well and we all know that there are a lot of very talented people being ignored but writing articles and having debates about it is never going to change the situation, I mean Pixie Lott?, what the f**k is that all about(I rest my case).

The above viewpoint seemed to me to be a bit narrow-minded. Firstly, as my friend later pointed out; who are we to decide that someone elses connection to Pixie Lott's music is any less real or valid than than this idea of 'authentic' music made by real men... with beards? None of the points of complaint have anything to do with The Internetz, they were all the case during the 'heyday' of the music industry.

For instance, since when has the internet changed the fact that only major labels have the money to advertise on radio and tv? The ads for music on Spotify are all major label pop records, this is nothing new. The whole point of the internet is that it frees you from that. Anyone (ordinary music lovers as well as journalists) can write about music all over the Internet and I have access to those opinions and recommendations as an alternative to blindly following the agenda of an IPC sub-editor. For starting points, take a look at Pitchfork or The Hype Machine. This ties in with the claim that fashions in music are bad too. On the contrary, buying music that your mates like and can talk about is great! You can all go to gigs and clubnights together, recommend new stuff to each other, etc. It's the same for pop music - at least all the Jedward fans have something in common, they've connected over something. Just because it's not to your taste doesn't mean that it's wrong. Fashion is basically another word for 'Scene' - nothing wrong with a music scene.

These sweeping statements that no-one goes out finding new music anymore and that because I can download an album for free, I won't go and see that band live are simply unfounded. There's no evidence for this. I hear more music now than I ever have (because it's cheaper, I can buy more) and as a result I have a much wider range of bands I like. I go to see these bands when they tour, I go to festivals like All Tomorrow's Parties because I've been able to hear the line-up of bands. These bands would not be playing festivals of this size without the exposure they gain from people being able to hear them on the internet. That's because they're WEIRD sounding. They don't sound top 40. They're a niche market and unless you can globalise that niche via the internet, these bands don't stand a chance of making any money and being able to take time out from 'normal' jobs to tour.

The next point made drew the following comparison:

if you make cakes for a living you expect to be paid for it...even if you do it in your spare time and someone wants one you should still be rewarded in some way so if anyone takes something you created without your permission and without paying for it that's theft. The internet is the perfect place for this because it's possible to 'record' anything that you can listen to on the internet.

But music isn't tangible in the same way, which makes it all rather murky. If you sold CDs and people stole those physical items then it would be the same but as soon as you remove either the physical product or the physical performance then surely you can't expect to have control over that 'stock'. It becomes more like stealing a photograph of a cake. Which then brings you to the point that people connect with and value recorded music whereas photos of cakes tend not to sell - the end result is that there isn't a fair comparison either way.

When I started making music when I was 14 or so, I dreamed that one day I would have my music on a CD. The advent of home cd burning made that a reality. I had a high quality, undegrading format that I could put my music on and sell to people at gigs. That was HUGE. The next dream was "I'd just like my music to be in a proper record store". Now it's in the biggest music store in the world - iTunes. It cost me around $30 to get it logged and distributed online and I make about the same amount of money for approximately 3 songs as a major recording artist would have made for selling a whole album after the label recouped it's cut. Most importantly, I have control over my music and everything I do. I could market the music how I like, do the artwork, choose the gigs and keep all the money from merchandise.

I personally think that right now is the best time to be a musician and music fan that I've ever known. I can back that up with the fact that our studio is busier than I can remember it ever being.