Do you need all balanced leads?

We were recently involved in advising on a new project studio installation which had stalled. The original designer had been taken ill and a deadline for completion was in danger of being missed.

This gave the customer an opportunity to question some of the original designers decisions. One decision had been to install balanced cabling throughout the studio. The customer now thought that this was an unnecessary expense because all his hardware synth modules, samplers, drum machines and keyboards had unbalanced connections.

Of course he was right, the unbalanced 1/4” jacks on this gear weren’t capable of balanced connection and it seemed pointless to install leads running to his balanced mixer and patch bay  with expensive balanced cabling when only 2 cores would be connected.

This led him to question whether some other connections needed to be balanced, such as his 2-tracks (tape, DAT and CD-R recorder), headphone amplifier and effects processors.

As we know, balanced connection is essential for vulnerable low level signals travelling more than a few meters, such as those coming from microphones, record players or DI boxes, and AES digital signals, but what are the advantages for devices sending louder line level signals such as outboard effects, EQ and dynamic processors?

If the leads are relatively short (less than 5 meters) then for these devices the only real benefits are peace of mind, and a louder signal (+4dB as opposed to the -10dB of unbalanced lines), because RF interference, although a possibility, is unlikely.

The truth though is that you can never be sure that an unbalanced connection will be problem free, especially if cables run close to other cables and studio devices, and troubleshooting and sorting out problems can cost more than the extra expense of installing all balanced leads. For a studio designer, and project studio owners, its simply easier to use all balanced cable and leave a core unconnected (or combine ground and negative) when necessary.

For project studio owners the extra expense may not be great because the cabling is usually short. Our customer eventual decided the risk wasn’t worthwhile and stuck with the original designers vision.

What do you think?

Thanks for reading

FairFax

Why album apps won't succeed

We love the idea of the album app. Since the demise of the glorious vinyl album cover we've had to make do with the humble CD inlay booklet. 

Vinyl album covers were not only a canvas for artist  expression (the Beatles and Peter Blake kicked it all off in '66), but our first destination when we wanted to find out who had written, performed, arranged, produced, engineered and mixed the record. We had lyrics, pictures and biographies. Dammit, the gatefold was an essential visual accompaniment to the music.

So why are we so down on the album app? After all, at the very least they provide a curated portal to an artists online presence, including social media channels, tour dates and news, YouTube videos and of course artist's website content, and at their best they can contain unique interactive content and games.

Here's why ..

1) Anyone recently played Peter Gabriel's superb Xpolrer, Skunk Anansie's enhanced CD's, or Coldplay's brilliant Let Us Play? Thought not. All of these titles cost a lot of money to produce, contain great ideas and work, and will no longer run on any current OS. 

We estimate that most apps have a 3-4 year lifespan before needing to be updated, and 6-7 before a complete OS port. That's a huge investment of time and money and we can't see listeners wanting to pay for upgrades.

2) Even the best interactive content is usually only accessed a couple of times. Bjork's Biophilia is an ambitious project, but it's a huge storage hog. We admired it, messed around with it for an hour and promptly forgot about it. We still listen to her music though.

3) Most people listen to music when they are driving, walking or as background music whilst working. Not much of a role for the album app in these circumstances.

4) Video games have raised our expectations of interactive experiences and no album app is going to have a budget that can compete.

5) Does anybody really want to remix their favourite artist's music?

Perhaps you disagree and can see a future for this format. Let us know your thoughts.

Thanks for reading

FairFax

Why we shouldn't listen to too much music

For as long as we can remember there have been two schools of thought regarding commercial music making.

The first school maintains that you should have your finger on the pulse, be aware of everything that is "trending" (yep, we hate the word too!) in order to maximise your chances of success (ie getting recognised, making money).

A sub-class of this first school compares all new music to old classic recordings, technologies, and working practices. They'll tell you that if you use anything other than Fairchild compressors and 1959 Strats your recordings will suck. They're not much different to the "finger-on-the-pulse" brigade, just much more conservative and sometimes elitist (that tec costs).

The second school maintains that listening to too much music spoils your ability to think laterally and create. This group often has no interest in what's gone before, have few "traditional" tec or instrument playing skills and are often the ones who make the biggest leaps in composition and sound design. They don't know the rules, see?

Underlying these two schools are 2 simple human instincts.

The first school wants a benchmark against which their expertise can be measured. If they ally themselves with what has been successful before, they not only have access to a pre-existing shared musical language that is familiar to the public, but can also claim to have professional expertise.

The second school has no interest in what has gone before and what others have achieved (although they may have respect for them) and want to explore, innovate and develop a means to express and re-invent themselves.

So which is better? Neither of course. We can all recognise elements of ourselves in both schools, but  there is always an inner tension between them. When we can't innovate we copy, and when we can't copy we have to innovate.

So why should we cut down on our listening? There are two good reasons. Firstly it can stifle innovation. Who hasn't wanted to write and record a Marvin Gaye type song after listening to "What's Going On?" Secondly, no mater how quickly you copy the latest trend, by the time you release your tracks the trend will have passed.

We're off to listen to John Cage's "4'33".

Thanks for reading.
FairFax