By now you may have already read the rant on DIGITAL = BAD (and its sister, DIGITAL = GOOD). Hopefully you read the newly tweaked versions that went up at 8:30 eastern time on 2/7/06.

The new question I have for you is...were the changes I rant about in "DIGITAL = BAD" CAUSED by technology or were they merely a reaction to economic changes that TOOK ADVANTAGE of the technology?

Hello, everyone. Bruce, I have already sent you a private response much along these lines. To everyone else: I know this is verbose, but I hope you find it thought-provoking as well as entertaining. All of it is true.

As we were all taught by Hal Holbrook's character "Deep Throat" in "All The President's Men" ... "Follow The Money." The changes in attitude we are all experiencing in the pro audio / audiophile world can be traced to "economic changes that took advantage of the technology."

Think about this economic fact: In 1984, I paid $549.00 to buy a new 19" Sony Trinitron color television set. That's $549.00 in 1984 dollars -- and that was a "street price" from a discount house. By comparion, look at what sort of television set $549 can buy in 2006 money.

A world economy-of-scale has given us higher quality components and circuitries from output facilities that could not have existed even a decade ago. Like it or not, there are a lot of people who are very pleased with the sound quality of their "Chinese Neumann Knockoff" condenser microphones. These practitioners -- whether they are engineers, musicians, announcers or whatever -- people who might not be able to afford a "genuine Neumann" microphone -- are producing fine-quality projects with reasonably priced equipment.

I have had the pleasure of using modestly priced Shure and Electro-Voice studio microphones -- condenser as well as dynamic ... with excellent results. The "new generation" units from both manufacturers are beyond being "quite good."

Never forget that Michael Jackson's "Thriller" microphone was a workhorse SM-7 ... and I have heard too many seasoned engineers tell me that they have produced many a vocal session with little more than an SM-7 or a Beyer M88.

There are those of you out there who might quickly retort, "Yeah ... but what kind of mic pres are those SM-7s and M88s plugged into?" A good point, indeed ... until, perhaps, you take into consideration the fact that I have seen video clips of CBS's Ed Bradley voicing his NPR jazz radio show ... into what looked like an SM-7, connected to a stock Mackie mixing console. And let's face it ... if anyone could afford to outfit an entire production facility with U87s and Neve mic pres, it would be taxpayer-subsidized NPR.

The digital invasion of audio is just a part of the picture. There is a great deal of fashion and pricetag snobbery that has nothing to do with "digital technology," and it is not just in the audio realm. I can cite two parallel examples:

I know of way too many people who have Rolex Oyster Perpetual wrist watches, and they are very proud of them. They also take these expensive watches to their Rolex authorized jeweler on a periodic basis to have them "regulated." On the other hand, a Timex quartz watch "take a licking & keeps on ticking" -- keeping acceptably accurate time ... without "regulation." So the question becomes, "Why are you wearing that watch? To know the time, or to impress someone?"

My passion hobby is skeet shooting, and I used to shoot competitively with several other tournament shooters who had a particular brand of expensive, imported over & under shotgun. The manufacturer of the weapon suggested an "annual tuneup" performed by an authorized gunsmith (of several hundred dollars) to keep the gun's mechanism "performing at competition tournament quality." My colleagues did just that -- and still suffered part breakage in their weapons throughout the year, requiring even more repair expense.

While this was going on, I was shooting a far less expensive, domestically manufactured over & under. I mentioned the concept of an "annual tuneup" to my gunsmith, who chuckled and said, "You must be shooting with guys who shoot [that imported brand]. No, here's how you maintain [your shotgun]. Shoot it. Keep it cleaned. When something breaks, bring it here and we'll replace the part. Even under competition conditions ... it'll be several years before you'll be bringing it in for parts replacement. In the meantime, shoot the hell of it, shoot to win -- and keep it clean."

Case in point: I was breaking clay pigeons with my modest weapon ... with as much confidence and authority as my colleagues who were using weapons with far higher purchase and maintenance pricetags.

"Why are you shooting that brand of shotgun -- To break clay pigeons and win tournaments ... or to impress someone?"

A creative, naughty engineer friend of mine once retrofitted a Neumann U47 body with an Electro-Voice 635A capsule. He did it right, even down to rigging the wiring to & from the power supply to create the correct illusion.

I cannot tell you how many people with ostensibly "good ears" loved that "Neumann U47" and its "warm sound" ... and then dissed the 635A as being "utilitarian and pedestrian." It was, at once, sad and funny when I think of how many people he bamboozled with his sleight-of-wiring.

I had dealings with one audio studio that had a huge 1980s-vintage Sony/MCI console, retrofitted with a few John Hardy mic pres here and there. The impresario owner-engineer was very proud of it. There was a period of time during which the console was down for repairs ... and he had temporarily replaced the unit with a stock, analog, Mackie 32-channel console. He wasn't too terribly happy to find out that many of his clients thought the sound quality of his projects improved when they were mixed through the Mackie ... versus the obviously more expensive MCI with its esoteric pres.

The "videophile" production world is now dealing with what Avid and Final Cut Pro is doing to it ... much in the same vein as what ProTools has done to professional audio. The bottom line is that you do not have to spend an arm and a leg to get into the video production business.

"Digital" has allowed everyone access to the same gaggle of "bells and whistles" at a nominal cost, because the bulk of those bells and whistles are a series of ones and zeros ... with the end result being a more much levelized playing field. It is going to come down to issues of creativity, ideas and talent -- not budgets.

And as one who has had to follow -- and watch -- the money ... I have to look at that as a good thing.

Great post. Alot of clever points here, and I love the part about the "neuman" trickster mic

Just the other day a friend of mine delivered his mixes, done with behringer B2 mic, Behringer MX9000 pre`s and into m-audio Delta and onto Cakewalk SONAR 5, to a well regarded producer/mastering tech here in norway. The guy first asked what kindof set-up my friend had, an dthen made a mockery of his niceprice set-up. Then he had to eat his words when he actually heard the mixes, casue they really did kick ass. Afterwards, while trying to master the songs in his expencive severalmilliondollar set-up, he actually made the mixes sound bad. So now the artist has decided to stick with my low price grassroot-friend and forget the expencive dude, even though he was going to give her the masteing for free.
Just goes to show how much people actually rely on having quality brands insteadof quality experience/knowhow.

Thanks for the kind words from Norway, Snarf. I'm glad to know that "I am not alone" in such experiences.

The water seems to run "steaming hot" or "absolute zero" regarding the sound quality of the Behringer B2 ("Pro," I assume). 'Philes seem to either absolutely love Behringer equipment, or totally hate it. Not much room for middle ground, it seems.

Ah, the beauty (and latitude) of subjectivity!

Keep the faith ... keep swingin'!

Yapz,

Good post. I would take issue with several points. For every "Neumann swap trick", there will be hundreds of folks who would notice, hear and comment about the differences. Plus, I think you're confusing digital with analog. I agree that once someting is in the digital realm, it is there for the masses. Digital technology is a great equalizer. Good analog and bad analog are not equals. Again, for every Hardy/Mackie trick, there will be hundreds of folks that would hear and would use the difference.

You are right on about economies of scale. The price/performance ratio of many many analog products is really impressive, and is getting more so. Nevertheless, there will always be folks that want the absolute best (in their opinions), hence companies like Schoeps, Pendulum Audio, Microtech Gefell, Lavry (and others) will continue to be the inventors and set the benchmarks for everyone else.

You are right, sdelsolray ... I may have been talking more about modern analog componentry versus digital technology -- and I agree that while digital is an equalizer, "bad analog" and "good analog" are not equals, not at all.

I am in partial agreement with you regarding the pace-setting standards of the manufacturers you mentioned -- because modern component technology has allowed all the other "lesser" manufacturers to come a lot closer to "that high standard" at a much more competitive price.

But I am going to register my disagreement with your ratio ... "for every one, there are hundreds" who will hear the difference and offer a comment. I still believe that ratio is a lot lower and will continue to drop as both technologies -- analog and digital -- continue to evolve.

Everyone else reading these posts but not commenting ... jump on in -- the water's fine ... and the nice thing is, these are simply our opinions -- not law!

To respond to Bruce's original question, it seems to me that most of the effects he mentioned were a result of economics that took advantage of the technology.

I was in college when digitial multitrack machines and then ADATs started to appear in studios. From my perspective, most of the studios were not buying them because the technology or sound was better than analog multitrack machines; they were buying them because they were cheaper to purchase, operate, and maintain.

As another example, musicians have always striven for artistic control. Any compromise that musicians have made in this realm have mostly been for economic reasons; most musicians struggle to make a living unless it is through a patron, music industry contract, or employer.

Once word started getting around that you could put about the same amount of money you would spend on a good demo into a recording setup and record yourself, many musicians purchased equipment. In their view, they would be able to maintain artistic control and continue to record without constraints of budget and schedule.

From a consumer perspective, it's a little more mixed. With the exception of the artificially-maintained cost of music CDs and the fashionable iPod, digital technology has become almost absurdly inexpensive (i.e. CD players and CD/DVD computer drives, other storage options like flash drives). Of course, the initial cost of a new technology is always high, but as people looked to replace old stereo systems or find a better solution than hauling around cases of CDs, the falling cost of digital music eventually became the most economical.

On the other hand, consumers love the features of digital music. To them (and us), it sounds cool and futuristic to have digital stuff. Features like instant access to tracks or files (no more rewinding), perfect copies, no noticeable degradation on playback, and more recently the ability to transfer music over the Internet have been big selling points. It's a bit ironic to use the term 'selling points', since one of the big problems is getting people to pay for their music (too long a topic for my thoughts here).

There is so much to discuss about this topic that I could keep going. But, I guess I'll try to remember my good upbringing and give someone else a chance to say something. :-)

quote:

As another example, musicians have always striven for artistic control.

Yeah...problem? They didn't know how to use said equiptment...underestimated the amount of periph gear it really took...and ended up removing several sets of objective ears from the process.

Another thing...about this generation of engineers--the ones who have no real analog experience...that's tough. that scares me a bit. Like my recent mic hunt. There is not a mic that takes more guff than the U87...is that because there's a whole generation who've used nothing but the "AI" models of the last 15+ years?

I just use that to bring up a certain perspective. I've been told more than once by people who've never done serious work on an analog mixer that "a mixer's a mixer" and "any digital mixer is better than anything outside of a super pricey analog one"...both things that, frankly, they don't know, but have read somewhere.

And that plug in emulation is "good enough" and the "best value". While the first is an uniformed opinion, and assuming it's "correct", there is math behind the second part...I still think the point is missed.

I know someone who told me that a C1 was "preferred" to an M149 in a recent mic shootout. WTF? Somebody doesn't like the sound of their own voice, I think...and the C1 was enough of a departure from reality that they "preferred" it.

I think the problem with the economics is a lack of perspective all around...from the lack of objective engineers...to the guy who bought a vocal mic and thinks it's "the stuff"--or doesn't know what will actually work in a mix...to the person who wants to believe that their $2500 plugs is a better "value for their music" than a good outboard comp and reverb...

We've created artistic silos. We write the songs. We pick gear. We record. We mix. We play everything. We master. I know a guy who literally PRINTS the CDRs/labels for a client to sell.

Only together are we God.

Popmann,

As usual, you bring up some intriguing insights. I had hoped to present some ideas in a mostly unbiased manner.

The topic of artistic control is an interesting one. So many artists want complete artistic control. Some only really thrive in that environment (to use a non-music example, Orson Welles). But how many solo artists were/are never as good as the band that they originally came from? It seems like a mixed bag. As for me, I always like having another opinion or two to focus my ideas.

Many musicians buy some recording gear thinking that it will remove all of their obstacles to recording a great album, only to find that they didn't buy the right equipment, or that they don't have the aptitude (with some, that's the case, but they won't admit it), or that they spend so much time on the technology that they don't get anything done on the music side of things (I've definitely fallen victim to that on a regular basis).

Digital music has opened some possibilities, but there are some real pitfalls awaiting those who aren't careful.

Anyone familiar with Edie Brickell's post "new Bohemians" solo stuff?

'Nuff said...even the very talented need collaboration. They're not "bad"...but, they don't have the magic of the stuff with the band and an impartial producer.

I actually, in my own way, fell for the illusion. When I put together a studio (many years ago) the thought was, "Why struggle to get label attention, etc, when I can make decent recordings myself." A more mature "me" realizes that, while I've achieved more than "decent recording quality", I've missed out on a lot...there's only so much one person can do. Sometimes even when it's great, there's still a homogenous quality--ex: check Prince's stuff where he plays everything versus his records with his various "bands". He always had "artistic control", and rightfully so...but, only when he was wise enough to bring in others did his music become greater than the sum of it's parts.

And I'm no Prince.

I do think it's a pitfall I see more and more...guitar players figuring "I can play bass-it's two less strings"...which on some level is true. But missing the grander picture.

I lost a client (many) years ago...songwriter and singer duo. Neither played very well. I always did the arrangements, and the singer was marvelous. They decided rather than have us (me&the; studio I worked for) do their next set of demos, they were going to put the money into a new fangled Kurzweil K2000 and a PC to run Band In a Box. That was their level of understanding about what we did. The computer could play the parts, and the Kurzweil could deliver the sounds. Even though neither played piano at all. I was OK....because I didn't make a living off the gig. The studio couldn't be more unhappy. The owner said he was losing too many to "home studios" and closed down not long after.

I often wonder how long they fooled with that 24 voice keyboard and software before they fizzled...or sold it off to hire in a new production team.

I believe that the low price of the technology is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, digital allows musicians who could not afford to record otherwise to record and share their music with the world.

The other hand is what bothers me. People with limited musical background get some gear and make some pretty awful music.

Digital?
Analog?

It all comes back to the reason why we are all here in the first place; The music!
If you have a great song does it matter which format it is recorded on?

you have to realize that DIGITAL is just another phase in evolution. Before digital, there was analog, before analog there were human performers and paper. Before that, there was onlt one's imagination. So, really, we're very fortunate to live in a time where we have access to equipment that eventually is responsible for taking our musical ideas and distributing them in ways that were previously impossible. Even if we have to listen to more crap.

owen

Yes, digital is a part of the evolution of sound. It is a shame that it has made it so easy and convenient for people to record and produce so much "crap."

But to show you how much of an improvement even today's "workhorse" and "rudimentary digital" equipment represents over the analog recording technologies of the time ...

How would you like to go back in time, to the beginnings of the big band era, armed with nothing more than a Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro, one pair each of EV RE20s and RE55s, an Akai DR4d and several empty SCSI drives ...

To record the first performances of "Take The 'A' Train" by Duke Ellington ... "One O'Clock Jump" by Count Basie, and "Opus Number One" by Tommy Dorsey?

You'd have music history on your hands, and no one would care that it was 16-bit audio captured by workhorse microphones through a small, "prosumer" mixer.

quote:

Originally posted by BruceAMiller:

The new question I have for you is...were the changes I rant about in "DIGITAL = BAD" CAUSED by technology or were they merely a reaction to economic changes that TOOK ADVANTAGE of the technology?

I think that's a kind of "chicken/ egg" thing. Economic changes are caused by technology, but they also drive technology by creating demand for it.

Props to you Bruce for being one of the only people to "get" both sides of the argument. Sure, cheaply produced digital gear allows multitudes of people who have no business being anywhere near audio gear or musical instruments to do their thing, but there have been a lot of people who actually have developed talent in these fields who have been hamstrung by the inability to use decent audio gear or to spend enough time in a "real" studio to do them any good, realistically.

Hi everybody,
I think the two are not mutually exclusive. As technology advanced in the computor field it began to find it's way into the music field.
Technology has always effected the music industry. From the times of Stradavarius pulling logs out of the Vienna canals cutting them up and making some of the most coveted insturments in the world. To Bo Diddley putting the needle from his Victrola on his guitar to make it louder.
My point is that technology drives economics and economics drives technology. The more you can get for less money the more you will sell.
The benifit for guys like me is it makes it possible to get our music recorded with out spending a years wages to some recording studio. But there is a trade off. Quality!!!
I have recorded in professional studios and my little converted garage studio. Trust me I can hear the difference.
The hope in building my little garage studio is to get a good enough recording that someone in the major studios will say "Dave we really like these songs come to our studio and record them."
You see right back to economics.

Live in Las Vegas,
David
P.S. I miss working with engineers and producers. They can give a flavor to the music that you don't imagine.

kid-surf,

The info that the discussion is based on is here:
http://bruceamiller.us/audio_course/01_digibad.html

It could also be reached by clicking on the link in the last line of Bruce's first post in this topic.

Excellent info here...
thanks for sharing.

My recent decision to accept and forgive Digital does not change my perspective on how it and economics have affected each other. In fact, my recent acceptance may even be a survival mechanism rather than an attraction!

Since this got bumped, I want to add...there is a NEW Edie&New; Bohemians--original guys sans second gtr+keyboard, I believe. Anyway...

Magic. She's got to be what...40 now? And there's a wonderful playfulness to it. I don't know whether they tracked to analog or digital, nor do I really care (except from the geeky perspective)...point is, if you can listen to "No Dinero" and not be singing it for a week, there's something wrong with you.

Collaboration.

You know what else I realized? With the release of the new Shawn Colvin...my fave by far is Fat City...guess what--lots of other people. As talented as Leventhal is as a producer, it's the mutiinstrumentalist narcissism that plagues every one of her "non Fat City" releases. He's a great player...but, he's one guy. I just made that connection. Fat City brought in people from David Lindsley to Bruce Hornsby...THAT is what made it stellar, IMO.

Only together are we God.

Greetings, Josh here. Glad I found this place! My band and I are huge fans of your work and the artists you've worked with.

I think it's very clear that it's technology that has affected the economy. In the business world, the term for digitalization in the music production business would be "destructive technology." For instance: if you're a glass bottle manufacturer, the invention of the aluminum can would be considered destructive technology. One may be able to argue that soda tastes better out of a bottle (as I'm sure the bottle manufacturer would), but in the end it doesn't matter because the consumer has spoken. From what I've read of yours already, it sounds like you would agree. There's a chance, however, that things may end up being different in the music industry just because we're dealing with art here. For example, after trying many of the different latest-and-greatest amp modelers I came to the conclusion that nothing can match the sound of a good old-fasioned tube amplifier.

The Internet and other digital advancements are really not much more than advances in our abilities to communicate as humans. Considering the fact that music is really just an extension of communication (as is all art) it's affect on the music industry was inevitable. With this new technology comes new challenges. The way I see music production is that there's really one goal: to make the music sound good. Who cares how you do it if the end product is good? If you can get the sound you're looking for by recording something 8-bit digital, transferring it to tape, back to 24-bit digital, then to a 20-bit ADAT, then back to analog, et cetera then I say go for it!

Don't get me wrong Mr. Miller, I have nothing but the deepest respect for you and your opinions. However, as a musician I've tried to keep myself as far away as possible from outside influences in order to keep myself more creative. That being said, I'd like to give a little feedback about the training modules. Personally, I'd like to read more about what the different peices of equipment actually do rather than how you prefer to use them. I think in some of the modules you've written you've done really well at that, but in others (such as the "Recording Electric Guitar" chapter) not so much. Why do you use the mics you use? What frequency responses are going to react well with different amps? What kind of frequency ranges do guitars usually stick in?

Also, thank you for sharing your knowledge! I can't wait to read what you come out with next.

-Josh