Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 10:50 PM Our high quality gift cards are the perfect way to give studio time to someone special and they're now available to purchase online. Just head over HERE to purchase via paypal.
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 9:30 PM 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:
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.
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 8:22 PM 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.
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
Loudness War, Mastering, Music Industry, Rants, Recording, Studio in Rants Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 11:22 PM There's a nice, brief article over at DIY Musician with 5 pre-production tips for bands. They're all good tips, go check 'em out!
I'll have a think and try and come up with my own list soon. If you've got any tips, experiences or advice to share then please feel free to throw it in our comments section.
