PDA

View Full Version : Protools...



Haselsh1
24-06-2009, 08:08
I'd like to bring to your attention a wonderful digital invention that is apparently the best thing since sliced bread (it's digital therefore it has to be the best). Protools...!!! This piece of software is based around the PC and the Mac and is a music production tool used in most top studio's today.

Do you remember how it used to be...? The band would go into the studio and record various instruments on various tracks of analogue tape with every member of the band playing his/her instrument with extreme precision. Now the band still play their instruments but if their timing is out it no longer matters, their error can just be quantised back into step. The whole sound is recorded onto a hard drive and then... the most fabulous thing happens...!!! The whole thing is compressed using Protools inbuilt compression so that every sound on this wonderful new piece of music is as loud as every other sound. There is no dynamic range to speak of and the whole thing is only suitable for MP3 playback.

We are of course continually re-inventing the past. Kodak has just stopped production of the finest colour film ever created, Kodachrome and a couple of bands at the moment are going back to recording their music the old analogue way but I just cannot understand this obsession the human race has with digital. It is not clever, it is not necessarily good and it certainly isn't the best. I, as a commercial photographer still insist on using film for all of my lens based artwork. The image obliterates digital but then I almost always shoot black and white and digital cameras cannot yet do black and white. The images I produce are far superior to the ones I try to do digitally. Old seventies recordings sound infinitely better than bang up to date ones. Take as an example, 'Every Picture Tells A Story' compared with 'Rockferry'... both on vinyl of course.

I can't wait for us to re-invent the recording industry.

Barry
24-06-2009, 11:58
........ Kodak has just stopped production of the finest colour film ever created, Kodachrome ........

Take as an example, 'Every Picture Tells A Story' compared with 'Rockferry'... both on vinyl of course.



Hi Shaun

What! Have Kodak really stopped making Kodachrome? Kodachrome 64 was the best film ever made. Ektachrome or Fujichrome don't come close to the neutrality and naturalness of KR64. The 1.5 stops increase in speed over KR25 was well worth the tiny increase in grain. Not sure if my cameras will accept anything less!

Apropos Rod Stewart v. Duffy. I had been lead to believe that it was only the CD version of 'Rockferry' that was compressed. I did some measurements on my copy and the dynamic range was only 20dB at most. I thought the LP was much better in that respect, but have not heard it. Or are you saying that 'Every Picture ...' is more dynamic than 'Rockferry'?

Regards
Barry

Marco
24-06-2009, 12:42
{Moved from Abstract Chat}

I think this discussion deserves to be in the main part of the forum, so I'm moving it there :)

Btw, Shaun, I couldn't agree more with your sentiments.


I, as a commercial photographer still insist on using film for all of my lens based artwork. The image obliterates digital...


Even in the field of photography, digital is being exposed as a second-class citizen!

Marco.

REM
24-06-2009, 12:55
Some eye (ear) opening info on dynamic range and 'loudness' here

http://musicmachinery.com/2009/03/23/the-loudness-war/

and all sorts of info here

http://www.turnmeup.org/

With specific regards to Protools I would think that commercial considerations override any other when it comes down to the industry/producers' choice of production methods. Put simply Protools is a quick cheap 'solution' and lets face it, who gives a flying f**k about SQ (except the likes of us) these days when the mass market are perfectly happy with crummy lo-res MP3.:(

DSJR
24-06-2009, 13:41
Is Protools really that bad, or is it the people compelled to use it and dictated to by the record companies?

Haselsh1
24-06-2009, 14:34
Hmmm... first of all, I was indeed comparing 'Every Picture' to 'Rockferry' as an ancient and modern kind of thing and yes, 'Every Picture' really is THAT old so what does that say about us...? Secondly, Kodachrome really has bitten the dust.

Lastly, and for this forum most importantly, Protools I personally think is an evil that is thrust upon us by the record companies all devouring urge to make millions of pounds for every release. True, they really couldn't give two sh**s for sound quality as long as it is very quick and very cheap. They are a business after all even if that means neglecting the customer. Sooner or later they will have to wake up and react because if they don't, we may well do just that as consumers.

The Grand Wazoo
24-06-2009, 22:12
There's no getting around it, infinite resolution is always better than cutting stuff up & chucking a load of the original out.

Just like digital audio, digital photography is great as long as convenience is your main priority.

Barry
25-06-2009, 00:07
Some eye (ear) opening info on dynamic range and 'loudness' here

http://musicmachinery.com/2009/03/23/the-loudness-war/

and all sorts of info here

http://www.turnmeup.org/

With specific regards to Protools I would think that commercial considerations override any other when it comes down to the industry/producers' choice of production methods. Put simply Protools is a quick cheap 'solution' and lets face it, who gives a flying f**k about SQ (except the likes of us) these days when the mass market are perfectly happy with crummy lo-res MP3.:(

Ralph,

That's a fascinating web site and goes a long way to explaining the disatisfaction many have of modern recordings - but to measure 15000 tracks; some people have too much time on their hands!

Barry

John
25-06-2009, 04:33
On the whole I am an analogue man but protools is very useful it allows musicians the abilty to record to a professional standard, all musicians I know use protools and some of them are very talented

Haselsh1
25-06-2009, 07:46
Please do not misunderstand. I dabble with a few musical instruments and have gigged and recorded at various stages but this Protools thing is largely responsible for why some of us feel the way we do about modern recordings. In years gone by compression was carried out using a DBX 266XL which was a bit of a classic but nowadays in the quest for speed and cheapness it's all done using Protools.

My gripe is with the state of modern recordings and therefore, Protools, it is not with the musicians. Naturally some musicians are a lot more skilled in their art than others and here Protools helps them 'keep time' but it is largely the massive compression that is applied that I have a problem with. I do not want music that I am going to spend my money on to sound like it is coming from an iPod.

Haselsh1
25-06-2009, 07:51
Just like digital audio, digital photography is great as long as convenience is your main priority.


You know I couldn't agree more. Digital is all about convenience but fortunately photography for me is about art and has never been about convenience. Likewise, hi-fi is a journey to a rather ill defined end and has also never been about convenience.

I guess that's what differentiates some of us.

Marco
25-06-2009, 08:08
You know I couldn't agree more. Digital is all about convenience but fortunately photography for me is about art and has never been about convenience.


That's exactly how I view the pursuit of hi-fi and my love of music. Your sentiments are also at the very core of what AOS is about, and why it was called that in the first place :)

Marco.

Spectral Morn
25-06-2009, 09:21
Please do not misunderstand. I dabble with a few musical instruments and have gigged and recorded at various stages but this Protools thing is largely responsible for why some of us feel the way we do about modern recordings. In years gone by compression was carried out using a DBX 266XL which was a bit of a classic but nowadays in the quest for speed and cheapness it's all done using Protools.

My gripe is with the state of modern recordings and therefore, Protools, it is not with the musicians. Naturally some musicians are a lot more skilled in their art than others and here Protools helps them 'keep time' but it is largely the massive compression that is applied that I have a problem with. I do not want music that I am going to spend my money on to sound like it is coming from an iPod.

I agree with Shaun.

I had a conversation with a musician the other day and he told me about being one of the first in the UK to use Protools back in the early 90's. He abandoned analogue tape in favour of Protools despite having lots of problems with it and many frantic late night calls to those behind the program to help sort out problems. He was selling his Revox R to R and I was liberating it.

The sad thing is this guy can hear, he has compared CD, DAT, R to R, Cassette, vinyl in blind testing circumstances and he was able to tell me which was best and in what order and his hearing would tally with mine. So why is he using a poor digital set up thats worse potentially to DAT:scratch: and a lot poorer than his Revox or 1 inch analogue recorder(which he is keeping). Convienence is the curse of modern life and recording music as well.

I agree with John saying about how it has raised the bar in recording access to young poorer musicians but sadly sound quality has suffered. It is to obvious IMHO that saving money has resulted in loosing sound.


Regards D S D L

Haselsh1
25-06-2009, 21:11
I'm not sure where this thread can go from here but I started it as a discussion about new versus old... recordings that is. My recordings of Blue Note jazz and seventies Roxy Music and Rod Stewart's early solo stuff absolutely obliterate new 2000 and something recordings. Why is that...? I can only suggest that it is the dreaded digital revolution. Digital has its place but I suggest that this is in the brand new technology role. It cannot and will not replace tried and tested older technologies and art forms that are very clearly superior.

Digital has caused a revolution in communications... brand new technology with brand new goals. Communications are dependent upon speed and convenience to the user. Art is art...!!! No one ever said it was going to be easy. A fine art monochrome print has one thing that digital fails at miserably... depth. For that read quality and finess. The very things that CD fails miserably at...!!! Surely there must be some correlation...???

DSJR
25-06-2009, 22:29
It's not digital IMO where pop muzak is concerned! It's record companies insisting that everything is "turned up to eleven" combined with "auto-tune" process vocals and brick-wall limiting. I've heard too many great productions done in digital to think otherwise.

One huge problem with speakers is that they haven't progressed at the same rate as other audio products IMO. Gritty and metallic tweeters, phasey crossovers set right where the ear is at its most sensitive and a decrease in physical size doesn't help either.

Many modern orchestral recordings, especially many carefully done for SACD release, are apparently excellent as they've been prepared with far more care. I also found an early CD of the Academy of Ancient Music playing The Four Seasons which sounded dire on a Linn/Naim system of the eighties sounded really superb by the late nineties, the tone of the original instruments coming through once the playback system "character" was minimised.

Enjoy the best of what old and new can offer. I enjoy playing 78's sometimes.......

Haselsh1
26-06-2009, 07:55
I envy your ability to play 78's. I bought my wife an antique gramophone years ago and a few 78's to play on it but when I left her, I left it with her. Stupid move I know.

I agree with your comments regarding the music industry. I consider recent recordings a retrograde step but agree that this is in all probability, the doing of the industry rather than the technology. I must add however that I find when a new technique comes around everyone automatically assumes it is the best and therefore everyone rushes to be the first to use it. It is being proven over and over again that the latest in technology is not necessarily the best.

I have the copy of the 'Four Seasons Suite' played on period instruments from the eighties and find that the sound quality of this recording is exquisite. I also find that this recording at present, sounds nowhere near as nice as when I had my 300B single ended amplifier and Audio Note AZ-Two speakers. This is a system I strive to recapture at some point in the future. Whether I shall ever have the finances to be able to do that I do not know at present.

PS: My copy of the recording is on an early CD.

Mr. C
26-06-2009, 08:41
The vast majority of todays recordings are 'produced' this way purely at the request of the record companies, what is recorded at the time in the studio bears no resemblance to the CD you purchase in the shop.

Marco
26-06-2009, 09:13
Hey, Shaun, you're on roll. This is another gem:


I must add however that I find when a new technique comes around everyone automatically assumes it is the best and therefore everyone rushes to be the first to use it. It is being proven over and over again that the latest in technology is not necessarily the best.


I wholeheartedly agree!! The sheep-like mentality exhibited by the general public in that respect does my tits right in, and is endemic of the 'convenience over quality' culture, and lowering of standards in so many aspects of life, which has become a disease of modern society.

What drives people (I'd say mostly men) so that they *must* have the 'latest and greatest' new toy or gadget, regardless of the fact if it's actually any better in terms of its core function, than what preceded it? I just don't get it :confused:

Me? Quality will always come before convenience with almost anything in life, and I'll only invest in something new *if* it demonstrably outperforms, by a significant margin, whatever I was using before for that purpose.

I guess that because I can think for myself and not be influenced by bullshit advertising, nor possess a predisposition to 'impress' my peers, I'm a marketing man's worst nightmare ;)

Marco.

Haselsh1
26-06-2009, 14:24
Hey, I've just bought yet another camera. It's around ten years old and is a Nikon F100 with an MB15 grip...! Guess what...? It takes film...!!! Thank God it's superior in every respect.

Right, where's that bloody soapbox...!!!

Haselsh1
26-06-2009, 14:31
Marco, you got me thinking... steady old chap...!

Why are women apparently never as shallow as men...? Why is it that it is men who have the need to outpose the rest with the latest technology regardless of whether it is sh*t or not...? Why is it that these same men seem to always have a blacker cat than yours...? Their Mercedes always outperforms your BMW and so on...? Their camera is always 25 megapixel when yours is 10...? Don't they realise that by cramming more pixels on the same size chip the quality will suffer...? It is now thought that the earlier 6 or 7 megapixel cameras actually outperform the newer 10 or 12 megapixel ones. Take the Nikon D70. The image quality from this camera is staggering AND it can shoot infra red.

Enough, I'm off to the pub...!!!

Marco
26-06-2009, 14:48
Hi Shaun,


Their camera is always 25 megapixel when yours is 10...? Don't they realise that by cramming more pixels on the same size chip the quality will suffer...? It is now thought that the earlier 6 or 7 megapixel cameras actually outperform the newer 10 or 12 megapixel ones...


Sounds to me mate very similar to DAC chips... 16-bit Philips TDA1541s, done well, vs. 24-bit *whatever* - no contest ;)

Oh the analogies you've started here! :eyebrows:

Enjoy the pub :cool:

Marco.

Barry
26-06-2009, 15:07
..........

Why is it that ... Their Mercedes always outperforms your BMW and so on...?

Their camera is always 25 megapixel when yours is 10...? Don't they realise that by cramming more pixels on the same size chip the quality will suffer...? It is now thought that the earlier 6 or 7 megapixel cameras actually outperform the newer 10 or 12 megapixel ones. Take the Nikon D70. The image quality from this camera is staggering AND it can shoot infra red.

Enough, I'm off to the pub...!!!

I don't have either a BMW or a Mercedes!

Apropos digital sensors - it is the overall size of the sensor that matters, not necessarily the number of pixals it has. Larger sensors electronically have a higher signal to noise ratio, and the noise is roughly the digital equivalent to film grain. I'm still waiting for a CCD sensor that is the same size as the exposed area of 35mm film: 24mm x 36mm. Might be some wait!

Regards

Marco
26-06-2009, 15:20
I don't have either a BMW or a Mercedes!


I have one of the latter and can relate to Shaun's analogy :eyebrows: ;)

Marco.

Barry
26-06-2009, 15:25
I have one of the latter and can relate to Shaun's analogy :eyebrows: ;)

Marco.

Trust it's a roadster - nice!:eyebrows:

Regards

Marco
26-06-2009, 15:27
No, no, unfortunately nothing so ostentatious... ;)

Marco.

DSJR
26-06-2009, 19:37
Sounds to me mate very similar to DAC chips... 16-bit Philips TDA1541s, done well, vs. 24-bit *whatever* - no contest ;)

Marco.

The TD1541 had loads of problems at ultra-sonic frequencies and many machines using this technology sprayed out loads of s**t down the screens of the signal leads. I use a 1541 based machine but it only sounds best via its transformer coupled audio outputs, whatever colourations introduced by the transformers suiting me very well thank you ;)

If you're going to have a go about "alternative" digital technology not being that good, look no further than "Bitsream." This was designed for walkman type players but the likes of Meridian took it on board to see what it could do. FE's loved Bitstream because it could sound lush and soft like their favourite turntable. I just found it coloured!

Like analogue Marco, it's the way it's used, not what is used IMO.

Haselsh1
26-06-2009, 21:43
I don't have either a BMW or a Mercedes!

Apropos digital sensors - it is the overall size of the sensor that matters, not necessarily the number of pixals it has. Larger sensors electronically have a higher signal to noise ratio, and the noise is roughly the digital equivalent to film grain. I'm still waiting for a CCD sensor that is the same size as the exposed area of 35mm film: 24mm x 36mm. Might be some wait!

Regards


I was under the impression that was exactly what I said. Also, a full frame 35mm sensor already exists, take a look at

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/category/basecategory.aspx?cat03=3065&brand=168

These cameras have been available for a while now.

Jason P
29-06-2009, 20:53
I have to respectfully disagree here that ProTools is the arch enemy of quality. A good protools rig (or any other Digital Audio Workstation) is capable of excellent digital quality, with a good dynamic range - it's the record companies insistance on compressing the cr*p out of recordings to make them 'radio friendly' that is doing the harm.

Protools has enabled many, many talented artistes to record to a level that would not have been possible 10 or even 20 years ago. Back then most demo's were recorded on a Tascam Portastudio - and with the best will in the world, the quality wasn't up to much. The ability buy the kit to record a master-quality mutlitrack album for less than what would have been a week in a recording studio must, in my mind, be a good thing.

In my field (TV production) we've noticed a similar phenomenon with the advent of systems like Final Cut Pro, breaking the dominance of Avid in the world of non-linear editors. This sea change in the industry has devolved the means of production from an elite few to a much wider base - but the skills to use this cheaper kit well are lacking, as people do a 2 or 3 day course and call themselves editors. For many, my 20-odd years of experience ain't worth paying for. It usually bites them on the bum in the end... It's the same with ProTools. A skilled engineer will make an album sound a million dollars without a tenth of that budget, but a numpty will find it much easier to screw up too!! My favourite adage - 'Fast, Cheap, Good - pick any two' - is particularly apposite here.

I'm sure, given the choice, many musicians would love to record on analogue tape (I've got the last 3 Talk Talk albums - nothing digital in sight, even instruments, and they're amongst the best in terms of sonic quality I own) but the economic reality for many record labels will make this a rarity for all but the biggest of bands. Until then, I welcome the creative potential that something like ProTools can bring to a creative arena.

Just my tuppence worth,

Jason

Haselsh1
29-06-2009, 21:40
Jason, it's nice to hear from someone who has such clear views. I also adore the Talk Talk recordings for their quality.

swampy
30-06-2009, 22:33
I have to respectfully disagree here that ProTools is the arch enemy of quality. A good protools rig (or any other Digital Audio Workstation) is capable of excellent digital quality, with a good dynamic range

Jason

Agree completely. Products like ProTools, CuBase, Sonar and ableton have enabled many artists and musicians to create and record music that may never may have seen light of day.

Compare the cost for an artist or group having to buy all hardware solutions with maybe vintage equipment vs cost of a DAW's with software plugin's. Many plugin's model vintage synths and hardware that are near impossible to buy unless you have deep pockets and space to house them all.

I think final mastering tools and plugins in the wrong hands are the culprit.... aka... heavy compression to make the music radio and portable player friendly.

rant over.