Do we need more features in our DAW software?

This week Apple released version 10.2 of Logic Pro X (http://www.apple.com/logic-pro/whats-new/). Having glanced at the list of new features, we Googled "Logic Pro X release notes" and found this .. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203718 .. which includes an impressive list of bug fixes, including a couple which will make us feel a lot more confident when using the application.

Is it just us or are bug fixes more important than new features? Sure the new workflow features are welcome, and the Alchemy synth is fine (although we're not sure there's anything particularly new here), but having a stable and reliable platform to get music production work done seems more important somehow.

The New Alchemy synth in Logic Pro X 10.2

The time has long passed when the average DAW user knew, let alone used, all of the features DAWs offer, but it is true that each of us will have a different needs and working practices.

But how many of us buy new pieces of gear hoping they will produce the results we want without first getting to know our existing gear? Guilty! Are there really any limitations to the music and sounds we can produce and process in Logic, or Cubase, or Live etc? If there are, we must be close to eliminating them.

The last 10 years must be close to being the least innovative in terms of sound design/engineering originality. With many artists, producers, sound engineers and gear manufacturers focused on re-creating the classic sounds of yesteryear is it any wonder?

The problem is that even if we are attempting original sound design with our gear, its hard to produce anything truly original. It's mostly been done before. We're just not sure originality can be created with gear anymore. No matter how talented we are, we can't impress with sound design alone anymore.

All is not lost however! The individual voice that results from unique songwriting and musicianship will always produces original artists we want to hear. Many will argue that our gear is no longer the problem. We have a fantastic choice. But we can always innovate when it comes to songwriting, arranging and performance.

At Project Studio Handbook we have a long list of technical to-dos, including repairs, learning new software, creating a better DAW song template etc. Our list of new song ideas is considerably shorter. Time to do something about it!

Thanks for watching and reading.
FairFax

Who told you vinyl is superior to CD?

Like many teenagers who grew up in the 1970s, several of our team were obsessed with music and amassed vast record collections. In those days there wasn't much competition for their attentions. No mobile phones, no video games, no on-demand TV, and you only got to see the latest films if you went to the cinema (yeah .. no VHS or DVD!).

Despite the fact that they couldn't afford record players capable of retrieving all the information from their precious records, they became accustomed to the sound of vinyl. It was the norm.

And then CD happened. They complained that CDs sounded too bright and harsh (hi-frequencies are difficult to cut to vinyl and are therefore rolled off during mastering). And all the Hi-Fi mags declared the superiority of vinyl. You must understand that the hi-fi critics all had hi-end Naim amps and Linn Sondek turntables and the like (think £1000 worth of gear), and had a great deal of investment to protect. It's also true that early CD players weren't the best (it took several years for DACs to improve). However, no-one could deny the sound quality improvements CDs delivered such as the lack of wow and flutter, consistency of quality throughout an LP, low noise, wide dynamic range and increased frequency response.

As the record companies began to re-release old albums on CD, those who knew professional musicians and artists were aghast to see them throw out their record collections en-masse and replace them with CDs. Why would they do that? They'd spent a lifetime collecting them, and didn't vinyl sound better?

What they knew, and we didn't, was the simple fact that CD sounded much, much closer to the mix masters they created in the studio, even if these masters were  analogue (2-track 1/2"). They knew that vinyl was always a compromise and disappointment.

Of course, none of this evidence means that the audience isn't allowed to like vinyl. It has a sound that can be pleasing to many. But unless an album is mixed specifically for vinyl, it will not sound the way the creators intended when they mixed it.

We listen to vinyl every day, and love it. But we would never claim that it's sound is technically superior. Here are some of the technical problems ..

* compromised frequency response - you can't cut deep bass and hi treble to vinyl
* compromised dynamic range - you can't cut loud to vinyl, and too wide a dynamic range means much of the sound will be spoilt by noise
* distortion - as the needled moves towards the centre of the record that angle of incidence increases, and the speed of rotation slows, and distortion increases (this is why the last tracks on albums are often ballads with sparser arrangements)
* wow and flutter - its hard to spin an object in perfect motion
* noise - it's OK to like clicks and pops but they're not exactly intended

The electro mechanical problems associated with vinyl are huge and it is inferior to digital in almost every way. It is true that because vinyl lacks hi-end detail, deep low end, and adds harmonic distortion it may seem to add a "warmth" to the sound which many like, but it cannot faithfully reproduce the quality of most studio masters. 12" 45rpm vinyl produces the best quality but it still falls short of CD quality digital.

So let's enjoy both mediums, but remember that when someone tells us that vinyl is superior, they only mean they prefer it.

Thanks for watching and reading.
FairFax

Every time we mix, we learn something new

We've recently finished mixing a new album by Matt Ottewill in his home studio.

The great advantage of a home studio is being able to refine mixes without the interruption of other clients or sessions. We can take our time and leave everything setup for days or even weeks as we check and correct mixes.

There are however many disadvantages ..

1. Without the pressure of time limitations there's always the danger of over mixing until everything is so 'perfect' the excitement is sucked out.
2. The opinions of others such as engineers are missed.
3. Without proper acoustic studio design, judging correct bass level is challenging.
4. Project fatigue increases as time goes on.

Dave Stewart once said you never finish a project, just abandon it. You can judge for yourself how well we did by heading over to Matt's site (www.mattottewill.com) and watching the first music video from the album, which will have been uploaded by the time you read this. The album is due for release very shortly.

During the mixing we did learned  something new. We were using PMC monitors, which are well known for their flat frequency response even at very low volumes. This means the bass balance doesn't change. This was great for helping us judge bass levels but we noticed that when we switched to Matt's KRKs, the quieter we monitored the louder the lead vocal and snare sounded relative to the other sounds.

We quickly realised that this was because human hearing is particularly attuned to these frequencies and this causes a perceptual shift in balance. The KRKs were emphasising this, the PMCs were not. When the monitoring balance was raised our perception of the correct balance was restored.

At least, we think that this is what was happening. Do you know better? It would be great to hear from you.

Thanks for reading and watching
FairFax