Does Apple's Logic Pro X have a future?

Anyone who has watched Apple's recent so called "Special event" product and development presentations will be in no doubt that user's of Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro are no longer priority customers for the tech giant.

It was several years ago that the late Steve Jobs announced Apple were now a mobile computing company, and the recent focus on iPhones, iPads, laptops, watches and their mobile OS looks set to continue.

It looks more and more as though the recent re-vamped MacPro is a sideline that allows Apple to claim it is still interested in professional users, and can innovate, but we're not so sure.

Here's the evidence against the future of the Mac platform as a professional platform for video editors, musicians, sound engineers and photographers ..

1) Aperture has been discontinued. Some of it's technologies have been rolled into iPhoto, but iPhoto is not a serious solution for professional photographers.

2) Final Cut Pro X is a superb solution for web video producers, such as ourselves, but it's first release excluded too many professional features and it's reputation was damaged for existing power users. And despite Apple's claims, it looks as though few professionals are using it, especially for on-line editing. Left out in the cold with no Mac Pro for months, professionals have moved back to Avid.

3) Years in the making, Logic Pro X arrived with a shiny new paint job, and the longest list of bugs we can recall in a major release. Once Logic led the field, but now it is playing catch-up, and Apple have ben slow to add features which have long been available in its major rivals.

A lot of bugs have been repaired (the recent service release bug fix list was huge!) but many remain, and the new Flex tools contain the most.

The programme also has many features that feel "consumer" orientated such as drummer and Apple loops whilst the environment (a serious professional tool) languishes with the old version 9 interface. Don't get us wrong, we like seeing powerful tools put into more hands, but too many features feel Mickey Mouse to us. The real problem is that the de-facto professional alternative, ProTools, is a huge investment leap away.

4) Final Cut Pro X, Motion and Logic Pro X are cheap. Really cheap. This suggests that Apple are focused on selling more iMacs to non-professional / consumer users. If the demographic is changing, Apple will need to make it's applications user friendly, which they are. You might say 'dumbed down'.

Also, are we the only ones who think that Apple is looking less and less like an innovate tech firm and more and more like Benetton? Everything seems so bland, and someone should tell Jony Ive that good design is not just the absence of bad design. Where have the bold design statements gone? (But this rant is for another day).

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Essential Sound Recording Diagrams

Whilst working on scripts for our Sound Theory video series, it suddenly dawned on us how many diagrammatic representations of equipment functions, and sound itself, we rely on as we record and mix music and sound.

Because we regularly use diagrams in our videos to explain theory, it was inevitable that we would need to create a series on the different types and how to interpret them.

We started by thinking that 4 short videos would cover the subject. This has now expanded to no less than 11 videos (!!!!) in a series entitled Visualising Sound, and which includes audio metering.

Here's the complete playlist ..

01 Introduction
02 Waveform diagrams
03 Waveform diagrams examples
04 Frequency response diagrams
05 EQ diagrams
06 Dynamic range diagrams
07 Compression action diagrams
08 Microphone polar pattern diagrams
09 Impulse response diagrams
10 Audio metering
11 Audio loudness metering

We think you'll agree that there aren't any in this list that do not qualify as "essential", particularly as many of these diagrams are used extensively in DAW software and plug-ins to help us edit sound and set plug-in parameters.

So, we are suspending work on our Digital Theory and Synthesis video series for a few months until we have Visualising Sound complete. So far we have completed almost all the scripts and have started filming 01, 04, 05, 06 and 07. The first 2 or 3 will be uploaded at the end of September, so if you are not already subscribed, do so now and we will notify you .. http://www.projectstudiohandbook.com/subscribe/index.html

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Do we need magazine equipment reviews?

This post was first published in Sept 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

There was a time when we relied on print magazine equipment product reviews written by self appointed 'expert' reviewers. Today, print magazine circulations are in terminal decline and the publishers have been unable to replace sales with digital subscriptions. Why is this?

Like the record companies, their power and control over what we get to hear about is a thing of the past. But is this a good thing? Do we need expert opinion or can we find everything we need to know for free on the web?

When considering a new equipment purchase the primary questions we ask are ..

How does the product sound?
What are it's features?
How much does it cost?
How well is it built?
Is it any good?
So where can we go to get answers? Our primary sources are .. 

Product information on a manufacturers website
Retailer YouTube video
Third party YouTube demonstrations
Product reviews on retail sites
Forum discussions
Print and digital 'magazine' reviews
Let's evaluate these sources ..

1) Manufacturer information

Pros: Every manufacturer, or software publisher, worth their salt will have comprehensive technical information on a new product. They should also have a manual, hi-res images and video demonstrations. Sometimes they use a 'name' demonstrator, often a virtuoso musician.

Cons: What you won't get is an impartial evaluation, or problems and quality issues highlighted. You certainly won't hear about any missing features, and you can never be entirely sure that audio demonstrations aren't being augmented by some additional unseen technologies. If they don't have video it may be because they are a small outfit and lack expertise, but you may ask yourself why not, when hi-quality low cost video is so easy to produce. All it requires is carefully planning.

2) Retailer YouTube video

Pros: Often very well produced giving comprehensive and clear overviews of product features.

Cons: Same problem as manufacturer info, you won't hear about the downside.

3) Third party YouTube demonstrations 

Pros: Plenty of amateurs reviewers (some of which are articulate and professional) often with well filmed videos comprehensively demonstrating features. You get a users perspective without the hype. If there are enough reviews you can get a balanced impression of a product.

Cons: Often the reviewers haven't prepared well and don't edit out interruptions and useless asides. Sound quality can be a problem too if they are using a webcam or a camcorders built-in mic. Reviews are rarely scripted so they can really waffle on. Some are terrible musicians or only demonstrate one style! 

4) Product reviews on retail sites

Pros: Reviews will let you know if there are quality issues with a product. If there are enough reviews you get a really useful balanced overview of a product.

Cons: If there are only 1 or 2 glowing reviews, you can never be entirely sure if the sales team or manufacturer hasn't written them.

5) Forum discussions

Pros: You can often find discussions on specific 'expert' issues not covered by other sources. Wide range of views.

Cons: Contributors are often hopelessly subjective cork-sniffers, anxious to prove their expertise and validate their views. Manufactures pose as customers to promote their products.

6) Print and digital 'magazine' reviews

Pros: If, from past experience, you trust the reviewer, you may get the most comprehensive and impartial evaluation.

Cons: Reviews are usually written word, not always augmented with video or audio. Magazines depend more than ever on their advertisers and therefore rarely highlight real issues and problems. Many magazines have reciprocal arrangements with their advertisers, "you advertise, we'll review". You're only getting a single point of view.

To sum up. 

Unless you trust a specific magazine reviewers individual opinion, it's hard to see why we need to spend money on magazines anymore. A part of us morns the passing of these publications, but given the breadth of freely available information and opinion from which we can distill our own useful view of a product, we can't see a good reason for paying the increasingly high costs. It's true that magazines contain more than reviews, but can we not find free news and how-to guides elsewhere too?

What do you think?

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

How important is choice of mic pre-amp?

This post was first published in Aug 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

This week we have once again been asked for advice on buying a mic pre-amp. We have some forthcoming videos planned on microphone recording technologies, but our existing video "Differentiating mic-pre amps" is a good place to start. Find it at .. http://www.projectstudiohandbook.com/vi ... video.html

There has been a growing body of opinion that maintains that mic-pre amps are the most important part of the microphone recording signal chain. This is simply not true. Providing your mic-pre amp is working correctly, you will almost certainly find it is the LEAST important part of the chain. All these are far more important ..

Location (room acoustics)
Choice of mic
Positioning of mic
Quality of source sound or performer (are those guitar strings ancient?)

Almost all modern transparent design microphone pre-amplifiers have a wide frequency response and dynamic range, low noise floor and will perform well. This includes those built into even the most modest audio interfaces, mixing desks and voice channel strips. The fact of the matter is that modern hi-quality components are cheap and plentiful.

The primary reasons for buying more expensive, vintage or boutique designs are ..

Ergonomics - more controls and features allow matching with a wider range of mics (ribbon mode, impedance control, trim and gain controls etc)
Form factor - stand alone, portable, rack mount, part of a channel strip etc
Slow slew rate - which smears transients, thereby softening detail and creating a more "organic" sound (typical of the older electronics found in the Neve 1073)
Valves/tubes in the circuitry - which add harmonic distortion, often called coloration or warmth

It's important to acknowledge that whilst differences between the most transparent modern designs and vintage valve designs are the most obvious, even these can be hard for the untrained ear to discern.

We're certainly not saying that we should disregard the important role a mic pre-amp plays, but remember it is only one part of the signal chain.

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Patch bay parallel normalisation

This post was first published in July 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Ok, we admit it, not the most exciting blog post title, but this week we've had cause to hail the humble row of connected patch bay sockets called parallels.

So what are parallels? Simply put, a row of patch bay sockets are connected together such that a signal can be inputted and multiple copies outputted. That's right, you can duplicate signals.

We know what you're thinking. "Don't you need special boxes with expensive circuitry to ensure impedances are matched, group loops don't materialise and children can sleep safely in their beds?".

Most of the time ..no!

Back in the midst of time before a zillion audio product manufacturers began dreaming up and selling us niche gear we will hardly ever use or need, we had a thing called a mixing desk (Google it!). And believe it or not we used the mic pre-amps in it, the eq and it's patch bay. We didn't feel the need to surround ourselves with as much outboard as today. And records sounded great. Funny that.

Any patch bay worth it's salt had 2 or 3 rows of parallels. A standard use would be for splitting a guitar signal so it could be DI'd and sent to an amp for mic recording at the same time. Or for creating side-chain signals. Or for duplicating foldback signals. You get the idea.

This week, we used parallels for splitting a signal from a mic/pre amp so we could send it to our DAW for recording (via an analogue to digital convertor), and to a fold-back monitor mixer that is simultaneously receiving the monitor mix from the DAW. Thereby, we have latency free monitoring and control over separate fold-back mixes.

Think of it. A simple hi quality / sound card interface, a small monitor mixer and a patch bay = NO latency monitoring and flexibility for other tasks. Throw in a cheap monitor reverb from eBay (we like the Yamaha Rev500) and you have a great trouble free mic recording and monitoring system.

Sometimes its the simple things that please!

Thanks for reading.

Can you define modulation depth and speed?

This post was first published in Aug 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

In the recording studio we are surrounded by hundreds, if not thousands of switches, knobs and faders. If you've ever invited a layman into your space you will undoubtedly have been asked "do you know what they all do?". Like us you will have probably replied "of course!" (we all like to be thought of as terribly clever!).

But do you know what every feature of every studio device you own does? Looking around the Project Studio Handbook studio there are a number of pieces of equipment with feature we are clueless to explain. They fall into these categories ..

1) features we never learnt about

2) features we learnt how to use from the manual, but having never used, have forgotten

3) features we never understood and never will

4) features we don't understand but we kinda know what effect they have

Sitting in front of me as I write is a Mackie C4 controller which we use daily, but I've just noticed 3 buttons labelled "Split 1/3 2/2 3/1", "Lock", and "Spot Erase". What do they do? Haven't a clue. (We've made a note to read the manual and find out).

It's easier to remember features if you can visualise what they do. We struggled for years to visualise time domain FX modulation depth and speed (important parameters for phasing, chorus and flanging) until we related them to tape delay. These effects were first created with tape recorders. 

The recorder is put into record mode, a signal sent to its input and thus to the record/sync head. The recorded signal is monitored from the repro head, but with a slight delay (the repro head is "downstream" an inch or two away). To control the delay time you adjust the speed or pitch control (also known as varispeed). 

Now for the clever bit! If you constantly turn the speed control back and forth you create pitch and time modulations in the signal. The speed with which you turn the control is the modulation speed, and the distance you turn it is the modulation depth (or width). Faster turns create a more pronounced vibrato effect, and turning the knob further creates greater variations in pitch and delay time.

Combine this with a feedback loop and you can create a wide variety of time domain effects. 

These controls are common place in plug-ins and digital hardware, but visualising your hand on a tape machine pitch control makes it easy to remember what they do and get predictable results.

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Why you need a Noise Gate

This post was first published in June 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Why you need a Noise Gate
Post by FairFax » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:10 pm

Everyone has a gear wish list, and we're willing to bet that a hardware noise gate is not high on yours, if one is on it at all. After all, who needs a noise gate when we have low noise DAW systems with effective level automation and the ability to easily silence noisy passages in our audio files?

It wasn't always this way. Pre-DAWs, studios had racks of Keypex's or DS201's to strap across tape returns to keep noise and hiss at bay. But in the last few years, they have been selling them off, and as we write there are 19 on eBay at bargain prices. So why would a home or project studio owner want one?

Because they are one of the most brilliant and satisfying creative tools you can buy, that's why! The DS201 has remained in production, unchanged for decades. And the reason is that Drawmer got it right. Like Fender and the Strat. Or MXR and Phase 90. Or Neve and the 1073.

The trick is to stop thinking of them as noise gates and consider their creative potential. Because they are analogue devices, and have a simply brilliant compliment of tweakable knobs and features, you can run signals through them and "mould" a signal.

Firstly, the attack, hold and decay controls allow you to shape the envelop of a sound, softening attack or cutting a sound down to its bear transient.

The side chain allows you to trigger the gate from an external signal. A classic treatment is to turn a legato sound, such as a pad or guitar chords, into a sequence, by feeding a hi-hat signal into the key input. But you can go further and control the envelop and rhythm of any sound with another. We love to record power chords and then trigger them with a gurio.

Another neat trick is to use the stereo channels as 2 mono channels in series, with the first channels output triggering the seconds key input. We took a snare drum and a massive reverb and created a stereo effect which sounded like a match being struck followed by an slowly blooming reverb tail.

And even better, the range control works like a mix pot, allowing you to balance treated and untreated signals, for parallel gating effects.

Oh and it has filters so you can achieve frequency conscious gating effects, and you can switch between ducking and gating action!

We know that all this can be achieved in a DAW, but with analogue signals and the DS201, everything is so organic, more enjoyable, and just .. well .. better!

So if you have a spare 100 bucks, why not invest in a studio classic that will still be working and bringing a smile to your lips long after software support has been withdrawn for your precious plug-ins.

More here .. http://www.drawmer.com/products/pro-series/ds201.php

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Clients from hell

This post was first published in June 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

For all their limitations, its worth remembering that a home studio can be a relaxing environment in which to work. A place without stress. Sure we can get a little craggy when our creative ideas don't pan out, but a home studio is somewhere to try out ideas and experiment away from the public gaze of commercial studio staff and passing trade. And with todays technologies, most of the limitations are to do with our own skills and knowledge, something we can all do something about in our own sweet time.

But it wasn't always this way.

In a previous incarnation I was a recording engineer at a busy little commercial studio in central London. The studio had a number of contracts with major record and publishing companies to help their artists and writers record high quality demos. These were people who the AR had decided were worth investing several 10s of thousands of dollars in, so most were extremely talented in one way or another. I learnt a lot from these clients. And sometimes it was painful.

Two clients who came every month were writing partners. One was the artist, a singer in development by a label. They were very talented, young and 'challenging'. The problem was, they simply didn't consider the engineer. Me. One session (not un-typical) ran like this ..

Studio booked for 10am start. Finish at 6pm.
I turn up at 9am, check the studio is ready, demagnetise and line-up the multitrack, stripe the tape with SPMTE, boot the computer, put the kettle on, make sure the outboard and desk is setup just the way they like it. That kind of thing.
I wait. Can't leave the studio, they may turn up at anytime.
They show. At 2pm.
I'm a little tired. Doing nothing for 4 hours does that to you. But we start working. They knock up a drum loop and start playing with chords and lyrical ideas. They write in the studio. I notice they're both dressed in white. Unusual, but hey its the late 1980s. I'm feeling better, a vibe is developing.
At 3pm they announce they are going out for a while. To have some lunch. And play tennis (alarm bells start ringing). They'll return and we'll finish the recording.
I take the opportunity to leave the studio for 10 minutes to buy a sandwich.
I wait. And wait. And wait.
They return at 7.30pm. I'm frazzled and ticked off. But not as much as I am when they finally finish at 5.30 the next morning, get in their cars without a thank-you and drive off.
I don't have a car. The buses don't start running until 6.30am.
I crawl into bed at 8.30am.
A month later the label refuses to pay for more than 8 hours recording time.

The artists in me never treats the engineer in me like this in my home studio.

Clients can be hell.

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Buying the same gear twice

This post was first published in June 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Such is the power of digital marketing, we are often made to feel that the equipment we own is inferior, and if we upgrade we'll get exactly the sound we're after.

So we fire-up eBay, and before we know it we've sold the deficient device to help pay for the new, and at a huge loss of course, when you take into account eBay's and PayPal's fees (don't get us started!). The new device arrives and is indeed shiny and different, and even perhaps better.

But then, when listening to an old recording, we discover that we can't quite get that killer sound with the new device. What to do?

Looking around our studio, we have the following gear which we have sold in the past and had to buy back again ..

- Boss PSH-3 Phase Shifter. The authentic and lovely MXR Phase 90 we bought to replace it does't quite give us the flexibility we need.
- Yamaha Rev7. We hated this when we couldn't afford a Lexicon. But now we have a Lexicon we found the Rev7 was much missed for percussion.
- Yamaha DX7. Why did we ever think that the superior sounding and more flexible NI FM8 would be better?
- Drawmer DS201 noise gate. Nothing can replace the feel of those knobs and the analogue vibe.
- Fender Frontman solid state amp. The Hot Rod Deluxe valve amp we bought to replace this is in every way better, and yet .. what else can create those hard edged 70s guitar sounds?
- Akai sampler. Well, a software sampler isn't really a sampler, is it?

We know many studio owners who never sell anything. Inevitably this means piles of redundant gear cluttering up their spaces (ADATs, DAT machines, drum machines anybody?), and yet .. every one of those devices has a unique vibe and sound. And some of the great musical leaps forward have been made with cheap second hand gear discarded by so called "pros" (Acid, Chicago house, hip-hop etc etc).

It makes you think, doesn't it?

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Does your DAW make you sweat?

This post was first published in May 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

The Gods have decided that once again we will have a summer here in London. If you've lived in London as long as we have, you notice these things. Until recently summers in England were optional, but now for whatever reason (global warming, the jet stream getting jiggy, etc) they've become a regular thing.

Wherever you are, summers may be compulsory. Perhaps all buildings in your country are fitted with air-con? Not here. And that's a big problem. Despite their many advantages over old tape and analogue recording systems, DAWs and digital equipment can run hot, and once those fans start-up you soon need the kind of air-con that is fitted as standard in all pro studios. But for most project and home studio owners, installing a whisper quiet system is not practical or affordable.

We can't simply open an outside door or window either, because we need sound isolation to work. And we can't use a portable air conditioning unit because they're so damn loud. We have one here that we salvaged from a second hand shop, but you need to keep it running constantly and with the din it makes you can't record or mix. The other problem with it is we don't have a permanent way to vent the hot air, the hose is gaffer tapped to a half open window, which of course compromises the sound isolation of our domestic grade double glazing.

We've tried turning unused equipment off, but it doesn't make much difference when the main culprits are the computer, hard drives, and power amps. After an hour wearing headphones, the sweat starts to run down our ears. 

We also have concerns about our equipment overheating and getting damaged. We've had a hard drive going to sleep mid playback before, presumably to save itself.

If we're very unlucky we'll have 4-5 weeks of this weather. If you live in a hot country, think about being without air-con in your studio for that length of time.

We don't have a solution for this issue, and so have to comfort ourselves with the fact that at least we save money on heating during the colder months.

Does this all sound familiar?

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

The death of PCIe

This post was first published in May 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

As we plan our forthcoming DAW upgrades, those of us that have made significant investments in PCIe based DSP (eg UAD), audio 'sound-cards' (eg RME, Focusrite Rednet), and Pro Tools i/o cards (Digi-link), are waking up to the fact that Apple no longer makes a Mac with PCIe slots, and if past experience is anything to go by, that spells doom for the long term viability of the format. 

The new Mac Pro has 6 Thunderbolt ports each capable of supporting 6 devices running at 25x the speed of FireWire 800! Thunderbolt is THE new preferred hi-speed 'professional' interconnect format, and as manufactures rush to adapt existing and develop new products, you can bet they won't be wasting resources updating their old PCIe drivers for new OSs.

Interestingly, in addition to 4k video display interconnect formats (eg Apple's DisplayPort), Thunderbolt can transport PCIe 'format' data, but only within its entirely new interconnect protocol. 

As we write, the only viable intermediate solution is an external PCIe to Thunderbolt chassis enclosure, and at current eye watering prices of around 400-500 dollars for a single card device, many will be wondering if such expenditure is worthwhile in the long run. After all, PCIe card manufactures will already be planning their next gen hardware, which will presumably be externally enclosed and Thunderbolt connected. We wonder what upgrade paths there may be?

As has been the case with FireWire for some time, anyone considering buying a PCIe product should think very carefully before committing to an expensive purchase.

We've been here before and will do so again. Keep your powder dry. 

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Diagnosing the causes of audio clicks 'n' pops

This post was first published in May 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Back in old days of analogue, most pops and clicks in the signal chain were caused by poor interconnections, dodgy leads, plugs and sockets. Occasionally they would be caused by a thermostat clicking on or off in the studio fridge, but by and large they were easy to diagnose and fix. There were other problems and issues in the analogue studio, but a discussion of them is for another day.

So we were a little frustrated when earlier this week we applied a minor OS security update, and Logic Pro X bug fix update that left us with random click and pops during playback.

In digital audio, click 'n' pops usually mean digital sync issues, so we checked all our settings, sample rates, word clock terminations etc, and when we found a driver intermittently displaying its settings, we looked for, found, downloaded and installed an update. Still the clicks 'n' pops persisted.

Perhaps there was a problem with the audio files, but after looking at cross fades, zero crossing point settings, and painstakingly playing the project with each track solo'd, we couldn't detect a pattern.

Could it be audio engine overload? No, plenty of headroom there.

Next we decided to check for updates for all our plug-ins old and new. Perhaps there was an old component issue that the OS update had highlighted. Updating plug-ins is a laborious process. Here's what we updated ..

Trillian
Korg Digital Legacy
VSL special edition
NI Komplete (5Gb of update downloads!)
5 Dunende plug-ins (in so doing we found their licence system had changed so we had to migrate our licenses from Codemeter to iLok)

Phew! Several hours later, and after a restart .. yes! .. we still had our clicks and pops.

Perhaps they were in the monitoring chain? The only way to be sure was to bounce a finished mix in the box, move it to another system and listen. Nope, clicks and pops rendered in the audio.

Now we were getting cross! There was the possibility that we would need to update our OS to Mavericks. Several hours of reading the compatibility info at software vendors site convinced us that the update would be dangerous. 8 months since Mavericks was released and at least 2 essential parts of our system had drivers still in beta.

We decided to sleep on it.

The next morning we booted the system and sat looking at the screen cradling cups of tea. Someone said "I don't suppose it could be the Drop Box app?". We use Drop Box to receive audio files for mix-sessions. Never had a problem before, after all it's hardly an audio related app.

But worth a try, we quit it from the menu bar and fired up our Logic project. Were the clicks 'n' pops gone? Yes.

The moral of this story. When it comes to DAWs, the problem could be anything. A simple compatibility issue between any one of hundred of components and we're sunk. We lost 9 hours. Aaaargghhh!

We know you have a story like this too.

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

How do you sell MP3's at your gigs?

This post was first published in May 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

A close friend of ours has just completed recording and mastering his new LP. It's a lovely recording made in a small project studio with a portable Pro Tools rig and minimal equipment.

He choose to spend most of his budget, not on gear, or fancy studio time, but on hiring some of London's finest session players. It was a wise choice because you'd never guess the humble facilities used. 

No expensive mic's were used, or pre-amps, or compressors, but it sounds as good as any expensive west coast recording. When I visited, there were a few Rodes, an old battered AKG 414, some SM57s and a bass drum mic. No proper acoustic treatment in the room either, everything was close mic'd for that classic late 70's LA sound.

We all know of course that great songs and performance are the key to good recordings, but it seams the kit doesn't matter much either. It helped that he had a great engineer and was able to take his time.

Now the LP is mastered, he has gigs planned and was planning to sell CD's at them. Except that a quick poll of his and our friends and family indicates that the age of the CD is rapidly passing. Almost all buy MP3s, most no longer even own a CD player.

Committed audiophiles have moved on, and almost everyone we know who has been active in the UK music industry has given into the convenience of portable music purchased from the comfort of a smartphone or tablet.

Given that selling CDs at gigs has long been a way to earn some immediate cash, especially as retail outlets decline (are their any CD shops in your high street?), how will our close friend solve this puzzle?

The problems with selling MP3s at gigs are many. Here's a few suggestions he is considering ..

1. Firstly, although there is less "souvenir" value in a printed card with a voucher code and web link on it, this method can work for digital natives. dropcards.com is one service.

2. A USB stick is an idea, but cost and duplication might be tricky, especially if you can't source small enough capacity sticks. 

3. He could take a laptop and transfer files onto the audiences mobile devices. But that could be time consuming.

If you have experience of this, let us know.

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Are your hearing what I hear?

This post was first published in May 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

We can all agree that buying the best monitors and getting them setup properly is essential. But what exactly is the best monitor and a correct setup?

Let's try and define and evaluate some objective criteria ..

1) Flat frequency response - The monitors we choose need to be balanced and revealing, accommodating the human audio spectrum with as few deviations from a flat frequency response as possible (they should reproduce the recordings with no tonal shifts).

2) Monitoring position - If our monitors are intended for near field work (where the direct sound dominates) they must be positioned such that they form an equilateral triangle with the monitoring position. For most of us this means sitting them on a shelf, stands, or the meter bridge of a mixer. They should also be positioned so that the tweeters are at ear level.

3) Supporting surface - Monitors need to be either acoustically de-coupled from the surfaces they rest on, to prevent resonant vibration affecting their performance, or sited on materials with sufficient mass to stop vibrations building up in the first place.

4) Room design - The room they are in can produce standing-waves (so called room-modes) which reflect around and skew the tonal balance, particularly in the low bass, so acoustic treatment is usually required. 

5) Auditory health - Our hearing needs to be good and undamaged. Do we know if ours is? Are we hearing what the same thing that our listeners are?

OK, all good and well, but here come the variables ..

1) Flat frequency response - How can we know if they are achieving this? We have all auditioned multiple pairs of monitors (A/B comparisons) to determine which we prefer, and despite most of them stating a flat frequency response between 20Hz and 20kHz, the differences can be HUGE!!

So we end up choosing the models we "prefer". But what good is it having 'great sounding monitors' if 90% of your listeners are going to hear your recordings on vastly inferior payback systems, most likely in-ear and in-car?

Many studio-owners resort to having several monitors with differing tonal qualities so a mix can be tested and a reasonable compromise arrived at.

2) Monitoring position - How often can we achieve an optimised and ergonomic setup? We are most likely to have a computer monitor between them, and if we have multiple pairs of monitors, some are not going to be in the ideal position. 

3) Supporting surface - Providing we have the room, this is perhaps the most achievable criteria. Hooray!

4) Room design - We've heard this mantra a million times, but how many of us project and home studio owners can realistically build or tailor a room well enough? If you've built designed and built an acoustically optimised room, congratulations, you are officially a professional and can stop reading this now!

5) Auditory health - This is tricky. We all have great hearing between approximately 6 and 16 years of age, then its a slow downhill ride. Should we mix differently for different age groups? A bit more top end for the over 50's?!

So, what should we do? Everyone has a different solution, and you know, we think that's OK. Did you know that of the two most successful mixing engineers in the business, one use cheap old Yamaha NS10's (nobody can say they have flat frequency response!) whilst the other uses budget computer AV speakers!

Given that we know, that few of our listeners (should we call them fans?) will hear our recordings as we hear them, either because they have, God forbid, superior! monitors to us, or most likely inferior (computer speakers, in club PAs, cars stereos, ear-phones etc), does it really matter how optimised our studio monitoring environment is?

Perhaps the best approach is to accept that we can never achieve a totally optimised and compatible mix, and to simply work with monitors that we love, in a room that we know (compromises and all) and then check our mixes on as many systems as possible, and fix any major problems (such as bass level imbalanced - always the tricky one).

Perhaps, in the future, we'll have a distribution system for music that can serve different mixes for different playback systems. We hope we're not around if there is, it's hard enough getting one mix right!

Have you figured out a method that works for you?

Thanks for reading.

Do you really need that DAW update?

This post was first published in May 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

This week a tempting message appeared on our screen to let us know a shiny new update was available for our DAW software. On closer inspection it promised a long list of bug fixes and several tempting new features.

But as our mouse hovered over the "Install" button, we hesitated. Something in our subconscious was telling us updating may not be such a good idea.

But why? Our computer is plenty powerful enough. Eight CPU cores which rarely register more than 20% use. We never experience CPU engine overloads, latency is respectable, drivers firing on all cylinders. Hadn't experienced any bugs. What's not to like?

We still think of our computer as recent. Well, isn't it? we asked ourselves. A quick look through our Sainsbury's bag of assorted capital expenditure receipts revealed that we actually bought it in 2011. That's 3 long computer years ago. And we all know what this means.

The new update will be geared towards current or recent machines, potentially with twice the power of ours, and capable of taking advantage of all those new GPU routines which will slowly but surely start to slow our computer to a crawl. Before long, our perfectly good system will be reduced to a quivering wreak, begging us to return to the good old days of hyper-threading, PCI express, and standard resolution displays.

And those shiny new features, will we actually use any of them? We haven't used many from the last update.

The truth is that upgrading gear gives us the illusion of forward progression towards our musical goals. But usually it really isn't. It's just a delaying tactic we employ to put off the challenge of "coming up with something good". Composing, arranging and recording are dangerous activities! Failure, humiliation and indifference await us at every turn. 

So we made a new resolution. We would rise to the challenge! Delay no longer. We would call the singer. Book the sax player. Lick that rough groove into shape with a few filtered samples. Rehearse the bass player. Warm up the amps. Set-up the mic's. Finish those lyrics off .. yeah!

We installed the update. 

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Audio hardware manufacturers - East vs West

This post was first published in April 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

In recent years, many established audio hardware manufactures have moved their manufacturing operations to the East, and in particular, emerging industrial nations such as China. For the most part they have not established their own factories, but instead sub-contract manufacturing to existing indigenous companies.

Such arrangements have become an economic imperative for many of these companies, without which they would become uncompetitive, or their products would become prohibitively expensive. 

At the same time, a few new eastern designer/manufactures have emerged, the most notable being SE Electronics with their range of mic's. Incidentally none-other than Rupert Neve has been designing products with SE.

A common opinion among audio forum cork-sniffers is that Eastern manufacturers, and in particular those in China, produce inferior products. They maintain that audio hardware hand-made in the West is superior in both audio and build quality.

Like many who have been working in the audio sectors for many years, we have had experience of a wide range of equipment both cost effective and hi-end, Western and Eastern manufactured. For what it's worth, here's a round-up of our, admittedly anecdotal, experiences ..

Value of hand-made products:
There is no question that hand-made products encapsulate a romantic notion of authenticity and craftsmanship. But build quality is entirely dependent on the skills, care and attention of the people building them. We've had a fair amount of experience building gear by hand, it's tough and requires prolonged periods of concentration. Most hand-made gear is made by skilled but relatively low paid workers churning our component after component on a production line. The quality of the build is entirely dependant on the physical and mental state of that worker, and the quality control of the manufacturer.

Of the last 10 western hand-made product we have bought, 4 had to be returned for repair within the first 4 years, 2 of which developed faults in the first year. We refused delivery of one item, components had worked loose in the case and several components were missing. All of these were hi-end products from renowned manufacturers each costing between $1500 and $3500.

Of the last 10 eastern manufactured products we have bought, 1 has been returned for repair, 6 years after purchase. The input transformer had failed.

Of the last 10 Japanese products we have bought, precisely none have failed. All our 1908's Roland, Korg, and Yamaha gear continues to work beautifully and parts are readily available for their repair. Our Sequential Circuits and Oberheim synths stopped working years ago and cannot be repaired because they require proprietary IC's which are no longer available.

Sound quality:
Eastern manufacturers source components, assemble and build products to the exact specification of the designers. All off the shelf components (such as resistors and diodes) have variations in their operation tolerances which can make two identical product sound different, but for most solid state and digital designs, these differences are all but inaudible. It's true that components such as transformers must be built carefully but providing quality quality is strict, there should be no problems. We have compared a UK built Focusrite ISA430Mk2 and a Chinese one. They sound identical to us.

To say that the audio quality of Eastern manufactured product are inferior to western ones is at best questionable, and at worst plain racist.

We attended SE Electronic's launch of their SE4400 mic at Air Lyndhurst studio in London some years ago. In a shoot-out with a wide range of modern, classic and vintage mic's, no one thought the SE mic was inferior. It was immensely impressive.

Let's be clear. There are many terrific hand made and production line manufactured western products which sound great, are reliable and can be maintained and repaired. But our experience suggests they western manufactured products are not intrinsically superior in build and sound quality to those built in the east.

But hey, that's our experience, what's yours?

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:42 pm

Why audio hardware processors are better then software

This post was first published in April 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

We have all benefited from the huge advances in plug-in technologies that emulate hardware or offer features that hardware can't. They are cheaper than hardware alternatives, we can use multiple instances, and of course their settings can be saved with a DAW project for instant recall and shared with other projects and colleagues.



The audio quality of plug-ins is arguably the equal of hardware, and even if emulations don't quite sound the same, there are plenty of unique software only plug-ins that sound great.

So what is the advantage of hardware? After all, it's more expensive, needs maintenance, has to be re-patched and manually re-configured when a mix is recalled, and can only be used for a single mono or stereo signal. We're talking primarily about EQ and compressors.

We think these are the primary advantages ..

1. Usability: Making adjustments to settings with a mouse sucks. Using your hands to swiftly move between controls and perfect settings is organic, tactile, faster and easier. It makes all the difference.

2. Sound: Most hardware devices sound better than their software equivalents. Don't ask us why, we don't know. They just do. (Ed - feel free to disagree!)

3. Longevity: A good hardware device will last a lifetime, can be lent out, hired, sold, and may well increase in value as the years pass.

4. Compatibility: We cannot foresee a future without the current analogue (balanced and unbalanced) and digital (AES3, SPDIF, ADAT etc) connectivity protocols. How long do you think the UAD, AU, or VST protocols will last? How often have updates to host software and OS's rendered our plug-ins unusable in the short or even long terms? In the last few years we have had to literally throw away expensive NI Kore, SSL Duende, TC Electronic Powercore and and UAD hardware.

It can be useful to ask ourselves this question. If we had unlimited funds, would we buy hardware or software?

Don't get us wrong, the convenience of plug-ins is incredibly useful, especially if we are working on many projects and need to switch between them quickly, and there are many we would not wish to be without, but wouldn't we all prefer to have a bank of hardware 1176s sitting in our studios?

What do you think?

Thanks for reading
FairFAx

Who needs 192kHz audio anyway?

This post was first published in April 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

This week we were reminded of how lucky we are to be working in the audio, rather than video, sector. 

Although Project Studio Handbook is all about video tutorials, we are more than happy using AVCHD camcorders and off-the shelf backup solutions for our growing library of media clips and edits. We're not working at 4 or 5K, so although our video may not be as future proof as those that are, we feel the quality is more than acceptable for the type of content we produce. We have a number of 4TB eSATA connected drives, which we are nowhere near to filling. We can duplicate and keep backups of our finished edits, and before the drives have reached the end of their life we will have cloned the data to new bigger and better ones.

But spare a thought for those who are working with the highest quality cutting edge video formats. For them, a maxed out new MacPro is not just an option, it's essential. Add the cost of backup RAID and they are looking at an investment of $15,000 plus, and that's without the camera.

Working at increasingly higher qualities, presents some added challenges ..

- You need edit-ready hard drives and interconnections capable of high read/write times
- You need raw CPU power capable of real-time or fast as possible offline rendering
- You need a backup solution for all the raw data, which may have cost a fortune to film, and which probably cannot be re-filmed if lost, and the truth is, there is no adequate long-term solution for the kind of file sizes 4 and 5 k produce

Returning to the world of audio, we have almost none of these problems. And why? Because, for most of us 44.1 or 48kHz at 24-bit is all we will ever need, and even the most cost-effective of todays computer systems is capable of running scores of tracks and plug-ins without complaint.

If you understand digital theory (our videos on the subject are planned for later this year) you will know that frequencies towards the top end of the audio spectrum (20kHz) are poorly represented at 44.1 and 48kHz sample rates. At 44.1kHz a single cycle at 20kHz is represent by just over 2 samples, barley enough to represent the change between compression and rarefaction. It looks kinda worrying!

But can you honestly say you could differentiate 44.1kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz, and a reasonable quality MP3 (say 224kbps) in a blind test? I know we would all like to think we can, and certainly MP3 can handle modulated sounds such as phasing and ambience poorly, but for the most part, the differences are a lot smaller than you'd think.

Are you willing to take the test? Make a recording at 192kHz, duplicate it and convert it. Then ask a collage to re-name the files A, B, C etc (keeping a reference of which is which). Now, listen to the files and try to identify them.

Even if you can hear a difference, it will be small. We couldn't consistently identify the files.

And that's why there is no general out-cry about the quality of audio. No overwhelming demand for higher sample rates and word lengths, and why the attempts to introduce commercial playback systems failed. We think there is a case for moving on from MP3. Networks (the web, mobile networks etc) and storage are more than capable of handling raw PCM (uncompressed) audio data, but do we NEED better quality uncompressed audio? We don't think so.

So sit back, enjoy being able to process a snare drum with a chain of plug-ins as long as your arm, forget about a new MacPro, and spare a (smug) thought for our video brethren. They're going through hell right now. At least they don't have to worry about that 3D nonsense anymore!

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Repairing your own gear

This post was first published in March 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Like many studio owners, we have spent a fortune on repairs over the years. The day you finally have all the gear you want is the day you realise that at any one time it will never all be working. 

We have found that on average there are always 3 pieces of gear that need fixing.

Today, as we look around the studio, they are ..

a HHB Dual Burn CD recorder
a Yamaha 01V96 (several push/tact switches broken)
a nasty buzz coming from a Korg rack tuner
a Dave Hills Designs Europa with a dodgy gain pot[/list]

OK, so that's 4!

It should be possible to fix all of these things ourselves, even though we we have no specialist skills at all. It's not necessary to know 'how' the thing works, just what goes where. If someone hasn't made a YouTube video, its still may be possible to work it out for yourself.

The important bit is diagnosis. So, let's see how we might approach our 4 repairs. 

The Dual Burn needs a new CD tray (should be possible to order and replace), but we're not 100% percent sure if the laser will need re-aligning. I phone call to HHBs service department may provide an answer.

The worn tact switch on the Yamaha are a simple fix, cheap and easy to re-solder. This is a common problem with gear that is 5+ years old. All you need is a circuit board schematic, past list, dis-assembly instructions, a cheap de-soldering tool (essentially a simple plastic pump), and a soldering iron. 

You locate the components on the schematic, reference them on the parts list to get the parts number (usually different from the part name/code), order them from Yamaha (just phone the parts/service desk), remove the worn ones and soldering in the new. Cost? A few dollars.

We're sure that the hardest part will be taking the mixer apart, but Yamaha always include disassembly instructions in their service manuals (most of which can be found online in forums, or from the manufactures themselves).

A good tip, is to use your mobile phone to take regular pictures as you go, and have a lots of bowls or cups to put the screws in.

The Korg tuner is trickier. The buzz doesn't appear at power up but slowly builds over a period of 30 minutes. This sound like a power supply issues, possibly a transformer that is vibrating as it gets hotter. Definitely worth taking apart to see if it's loose, and maybe searching the web for any advice on similar issues. 

Or it might be a leaky capacitor. Capacitor's deteriorate over time and leak out onto the circuit board. They are standard components, easy to identify and replace. Often, a visual check of any circuit board is all you need to diagnose a problem. Order replacements and solder them in.

The Europa is within guarantee, is an expensive piece of kit so we're sending it back for service. But the fix will be a simple task of exchanging a worn potentiometer which will be a standard part, available like most other components from RS Components. If not, then we'd call the manufacture and buy the part. We have replaced many broken pots on a variety of synths and outboard in the past.

The most difficult repairs normally involve integrated circuits, transistors, chips, diodes and resistor failures where you can't easily visibly see any defect. But failure of these components is far less likely.

Other easy fixes include replacing backup batteries, and backlight's for LCD displays. The hardest part of the latter is disassembly.

So next time a piece of gear fails, you may be able to repair it yourself. Get online and see what help and advice is out there, Chances are someone else has had a similar problem, and even if you do end up using a service engineer, you will probably only have wasted a few dollars in parts.

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Prince and his adserver issues

This post was first published in March 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Prince and his adserver issues
Post by FairFax » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:48 pm

We are a big fan of Prince, but in recent years it's been slim pickings. There are the occasional returns to form usually closely followed by a deluge of questionable and bland re-writes of the back catalogue.

We were therefore pleased to hear that a new single, Fallinlove2nite", had been released to follow-up the superb "Breakfast Can Wait" (YouTube it. Sure the lyric is dodgy as hell, but what a groove!).

We headed over to iTunes to preview the new track but were not impressed. Having left the store without buying, we noticed ads for it appearing at sites wherever we went. Not surprising really, if you know how adserver networks work.

For those of you who don't, adserver networks host and serve display ads (banners etc) to partner websites. These ads are targeted and tailored by using the information recorded in cookies which are retrieved from a users browser cache stored on their internet device. 

After leaving the iTunes store, we visited an electronics retail website, and noticed a banner ad for "Fallinlove2nite". The website's adserver network (probably Google's, an Apple partner) had obviously read a cookie (stored in our browser cache) and had clocked the fact that we had visited the iTunes store, listened to the preview of "Fallinlove2nite" but had left without buying.

This ad is still appearing on at least a quarter of the sites we visit (that partner with an adserver nework), few of which have anything to do with music.

This started us thinking. If 'they' knew we'd listen to the track but hadn't bought it, why were they badgering us with ads? Had the adserver network decided that the reason we hadn't bought was that we didn't have the credit card handy at the time? 

We had listened to the whole preview just to be sure but, yup! it sucks! Did 'they' know how long we had listened for and were 'they' making any assumptions based on this snippet of information? Given that an .mp3 is 99 cents (or 79p in the UK), and cost is surely not an factor, perhaps a better assumption to make was that having listened to the whole preview, and having not purchased it, we didn't think it was any good, in which case 'they' could have served ads tempting us to buy a remastered version of an old classic like "Sign'O'The Times" or some-such?

Perhaps if we had only listened to 15 seconds of the preview before bailing, we'd have heard nothing more about the frankly lame "Fallinlove2nite".

It is clear that although adserver driven display advertising is clever and getting better at targeting, it's got a long way to go before it can match the accuracy and relevance of ads that accompany search results.

There is nothing stopping independent music makers running display ad campaigns, especially as we can set a budget, control costs and refine the ad based on analytics like click-through and conversion rates. Following our experience, we would be tempted to forget adserver networks for the foreseeable, and concentrate on AdWord campaigns (SEM).

I wonder if we can do better than Prince?

You can read more about this subject in our "Digital marketing essentials for recording musicians" guide by subscribing to our eMailing list here .. http://eepurl.com/IC-iv

Thanks for reading.
FairFax

Bi-polar activity

This post was first published in Feb 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Bi-polar activity
Postby FairFax » Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:52 pm

Understanding why something is the way it is can be rewarding, but not necessarily useful.

A common misconception amongst audio novices when looking at waveform diagrams, is to assume that increases above the central horizontal time axis represent increases in amplitude, and those below represent decreases.

This is an easy mistake to make because we are used to reading diagrams that show a single property increasing upwards and decreasing downwards. In fact we use diagrams that show exactly this when we want to look at audio compression or EQ filter action diagrammatically.

Open up your favourite EQ plug-in and compare it to the visualisation of any .wav or .aiff file in your wave editor, and you will see that this is so.

Waveform diagrams employ a bi-polar axis to show amplitude over time. The three axis are therefore ..

1) Horizontal axis (left to right) = time
2) Vertical access above the time axis = increasing pressure (compression) and increasing amplitude
3) Vertical axis below the time axis = decreasing pressure (rarefaction) and increasing amplitude

Not until you understand that sound is changing air pressure energy, oscillating between higher than normal and lower than normal atmospheric pressure, does this make sense. Silence is, of course, when there is no pressure change. Whenever air pressure change is happening, those inner ear hairs move back and forth and fire off signals to our brains.

This means that when we edit digital audio files, not only must our edit points be at zero crossing points (where the changing pressure crosses the time line at silence), but also that we cannot join two files together if at the edit point, the preceding file it is returning from compression, and the following entering compression.

Fortunately, our audio editing software is smart now and compensates automatically by moving the edit points to appropriate points in the cycles. Some of us remember when this wasn't the case and it took some time to get things right and avoid clicks. I think the Akai S900 sampler may have been the first device to feature a (hit and miss) automation button to analyse the waveform when you were trying to loop a short sample.

The bi-polar nature of amplitude also has significant implications for phase relationships between multiple waves of the same frequency, such as occur when we make multi-mic'd or stereo recordings, and there are powerful tools to analyse and correct problems. It can't be too long before we have software that does this without even letting us know. 

It interesting to see how advanced technology can make problems seem as though they don't exist. Perhaps it doesn't matter that we don't know what's going on the background (providing the NSA aren't involved). That is of course, unless you hate the feeling that you aren't in control. Which brings us back to where we started. 

Cycle end point reached.

Thanks for reading.

Building your own gear

This post was first published in Feb 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Building your own gear
Postby FairFax » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:09 pm

There are no longer any barriers to building your own studio equipment and the web is awash with amateurs and experts eager to share knowledge and experiences.

There are 2 primary reasons for DIY ..

1) Cost - you can build gear for something like a third of the retail cost of an equivalent item, or less if you source and build your own components. We have built a superb and authentic 1176 Rev A clone for $600 / £350, and a Neve 1073 mic pre clone with Carnhill transformers for $457 / £275.

2) Knowledge and satisfaction - although challenging, there is nothing like the satisfaction of using a piece of gear you have built. We hi-fived when our 1073 worked beautifully first time (do dentists do this after a perfect extraction?!).

The easiest way to get into building is to "assemble" a kit, and this is how we started off. Essentially you buy a kit that contains everything you need for the build and solder and screw everything together. There is no need to source your own components.

Before suppliers cottoned on to the need for complete kits, they would often supply schematics and only the bespoke components. You were left to source and buy all the standard items such as diodes, resistors, capacitors and switches. Such kits are still available, but for the novice we would suggest complete kits.

You maybe wondering if you will be capable of the build. Well, you need a couple of things ..

1) Some skill with soldering. This just takes practice and there are plenty of YouTube videos to help you.
2) Basic skills with a digital multi-meter. Again nothing complex and YouTube can help you out.
3) Most important! - a diligent, patient, and careful approach to the build. The best kits come with comprehensive written guides with accompanying images, help tutorials and user forums for troubleshooting, and sometimes email support.

We had no experience before building our first 1073, but by taking great care (and possibly 5 x as much time as a confident builder!), we successfully built, tested, and deployed our first device with no problems whatsoever. And if we can do it, so can you.

We definitely recommend reading the build guides several times before the build, and even before buying.

For the record we have built these kits ..

http://www.soundskulptor.com/uk/mp573.html
http://www.hairballaudio.com/shop/index.php?cPath=22

By our reckoning (and not taking into account the build time) we have spent $ 1045 / £625 (plus delivery) and saved something like $3000 / £1800.

Audio cork sniffers maintain that there's nothing like the real thing, but in our comparisons our builds sound as close to the original devices as original devices sound to each other (there are always differences based on age, rev versions, and component variations). And even if they did sound a bit different, as long as they sound great who cares!

There has never been a better time to do this. (And no, we don't get commission from Hairball or Sound Skulptor!).

Thanks for reading.

Sound Advce

This post was first published in March 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

We've been working on our sound theory videos recently. We really should have kicked off PSHB with them but for some reason we decided that audio interconnection was a subject that hadn't been handled in its totality well on the web and it would be a good way to learn how to make video tutorials. 

We figured that if they didn't turn out too good, it wouldn't matter because people wouldn't watch them much anyway!

Well, it's possible that those who are only interested in interviews with production stars, or with how to get a good mix (aren't we all!), or which is the best plate reverb, may not be that keen to watch a series on sound wave theory, but without an excellent knowledge of the subject, NOTHING else makes any sense.

If you have a good working knowledge of what sound is, and have a way of representing it and its behaviour in your head, then you're going to be OK. But if you can't 'picture' what happens to a complex sound when it passes through a filter, or don't understand how amplitude is represented bi-polar in a waveform diagram, then you're going to hit a brick wall at some point when you're engineering or mixing.

Just explaining that sound is not a 'thing', but a property of the medium it is propagating in, is really challenging without resorting to deep technical language. And as you know this is not what we are about. We want to equip project and home studio owners with ENOUGH theory to help them make great recordings.

For example, have you thought about how you explain how sound travels faster through solid objects than air, when experience tells you that solid objects are used for sound proofing?

We think we have some excellent ways of explaining the theory which aren't confusing, make for easy understanding, and will help us all towards a deep understanding of what all those plug-ins and processors are actually doing to our music.

We hope to have the first three videos done for middle to late March (this month), and even if this is stuff you already know, that you will find them interesting.

So they will be ..

1) Introduction to the series
2) What is sound? (sound waves in the air, pressure, frequency, amplitude,etc)
3) Air, electrical and magnetic pressure sound waves

You may have already noticed that we have completed the ones on dynamic range, and loudness, but we will make a new edit of the one on phase (which was created for the interconnection series), with some additional material related to sound wave theory.

As ever, we'll let you know when they are posted, so if you haven't done so already don't forget to subscribe .. http://www.projectstudiohandbook.com/su ... index.html

Thanks for reading.

Gear Expectations

This post was first published in Feb 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Never underestimate the power of marketing. We might scoff at the banal messages we are bombarded with daily but advertising affects us in many ways.

One way is to subtly build a picture of a culture that serves the needs of manufactures. And the web has proved to be the perfect place for it. Masquerading as Independant forum posts and user generated content, gear manufactures are leveraging opinion to pedal us old tech and new.

So we are constantly told that expensive and dated tech from the 70s is what you need because loads of successful records were made with it. And there's no shortage of venerable producers and engineers appearing in manufactures ads telling us so. All being paid or getting freebies of course.

But when was the last time you were able to conduct a satisfactory comparison between mic pres, or (god help us) analogue to digital convertors?

Yes there can be subtle differences, but they are insignificant compared to how you use them and the contribution your creative decisions make to the finished product. 

An example is the reproductions of the old Abbey Rd EMI tech. In our hearts we all know the reason those records sound great has a lot more to do with the talents of Mike Scott, Geoff Emerick, Norman Smith etc than the tech they wrestled with. Those guys created great records because they were talented and experimented all the time with whatever they had lying around.

Next time we see a great review of a piece of kit in a magazine, remember that those reviewers rely on the advertising revenue from the manufactures who's gear they review. That's why they rarely tell us anything bad.

So, we'll focus on providing useful theory, and you can decide for yourself what is a great piece of gear and how to use it to create something different.

Lets not forget that unless we want to copy what's gone before, we can be creative with ANY gear.

OK OK, we know. That's 2 blog posts on this subject! We'll stop now.

Next up, we've decided to focus on completing the Audio Theory playlist videos over the next few months. This stuff is so essential, there's no point posting the synthesis and digital audio theory videos until they're done. The first 2 or 3 will be uploaded in March. 

Thanks for reading. (It only cost you 10 mins of your time!)

Do you want to live in fear?

This post was first published in Feb 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

Fear is a big driving force in our lives. And sound engineers feel it too. They are terrified of being ridiculed for their poor equipment choices.

"What is the best tool for this job?" they ask on forums. And there are no shortage of answers. Mostly from other engineers desperate to have their own equipment choices validated.

So what objective measures can we use to determine a given piece of equipments value? It turns out there are two.

Firstly, what are the cold technical specs in support of the designers vision? If the device is intended to perform its job without changing the signal passing through it, such as a mic pre, we can simply compare the input and output signals. If there is unwanted added noise and harmonic distortion we can measure it and compare it against another device. Trouble is, modern electronics are so good that these differences are largely undetectable in blind tests, or at the worst, irrelevant to a great recording. I mean, do you seriously think that any of the equipment you own is technically inferior to the equipment used to record the Beatles LPs?

The second is easy. How much money did a recording earn that was made with the equipment. That's it. Cold cash. You see, most engineers want to recreate the sounds of successful recordings because they believe that their financial success validates the equipment. Or they lack imagination or are terrified of trying to create a new sound that may be laughed at. Its a dangerous game this creativity thing.

So what conclusions can we draw? Well, unless you want to capture the sound of an acoustic instrument as transparently as possible, the technical measurable quality of a give piece of equipment is irrelevant to its creative potential. You don't need an U47 or 1176 to make a great recording. You only need a U47 or 1176 if you want the sound of a U47 or 1176, and why would you want that? Because you've heard it on a successful recording. And while we're on the subject, since when did 'creamy', 'warm' and 'punchy' become universally desirable attributes? What if we want 'cold', 'harsh' and 'saggy'?

But hey, don't get us wrong, we like U47s and 1176s too. But try to remember that your choices, whatever they are, are valid, so don't listen to the cork sniffers, don't ask for subjective advice on forums, and treat subjective reviews (they want to keep their advertisers happy) with suspicion.

I few years back we visited a seminar on the Fender Stratocaster at a major guitar show. The panelists unanimously agreed that late 50s Strats were the best and late 60's early 70's CBS large headstock Strats the worst. Steer clear at all costs they warned. Except Jimi Hendrix played a Late 60's early 70's CBS large headstock Strat.

So, this is why we make videos on theory and technical matters only, and steer clear of subjective evaluations and how-to guides on how to get a "great sound". Understand the theory so you can get the job done, but have the courage of your convictions, create your own sounds, and remember that trying to re-create what's gone before is a mugs game (mostly!).

Glad we got that off our chest!

Phil Ramone

This post was first published in Jan 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum

You may have heard that Phil Ramone died in March of last year.

For those of you who don't know him, he was recognised as one of the industries greatest record producers, primarily because of the records he produced for singers.

The vocal performances he recorded made stars of many of the artists he worked with, and included Barbra Streisand, George Michael, Billy Joel, Tony Bennett, Paul Simon, Rufus Wainwright, Ray Charles, Elton John etc etc.

The interesting thing about his vocal production technique was that it didn't rely on any specific equipment. Choice of mic, pre-amp, compressor etc were all secondary for him. He focused almost exclusively on making the performer feel great and loved. This may sound easy but it is a great talent. 

In all our years of recording we have only ever met one other with that gift, Bluey of Incognito. We have seen musicians and engineers roll their eyes at the ceiling after several fruitless hours trying to get a performance from a singer. Not Bluey. He has an ability to fill the studio with positivity for days and weeks on end, and encourage performances from singers no-one thought possible. We can honestly say that the performances he produces would sound great if he was using an SM57!

It's good to get the equipment right, but its only a small part of making great recordings.

Phil and Bluey came to mind because we were working on scripts for our microphone / vocal recording series this week. Perhaps we'll add a video about the psychology of studio performance. Or perhaps its a little out of our remit. What do you think?

Thanks for reading.