iZotope Nectar, mixing vocals

[garyb]

your sarcasm seems to be unrelated to my actual veiws.
in truth, this is pissing me off more than any disagreement ever could. you are putting words in my mouth and ideas in my head that are not related to my point of veiw. i am not the person that you are arguing with. you are arguing with a phantom of your own creation.

perhaps, the issue is language. perhaps, you are really just a bored troll. if it's the first, my apologies for writing so poorly. if it's the second, it's been my pleasure to entertain you.

[Nestor]

fra77x, what are you smoking man? Are you reading this thread upside down or something?

Please, for your own sanity, do not post anything else before reading what people are actually communicating, and then try to find out the total disconnection of your points…

[Nestor]

I was referring exclusively to the mixing and mastering realms, and I really think that in this dominion, digital will equal analogue, this is what I said.

digital stuff is already that good, except not. currently, analog and digital are happily living together in the same world, with no issues. by "second world", if you mean the matrix, then knock yourself out with your implants. that will end human life much quicker than wars or bad politics ever could. yes, Ray Kurzweil would agree, the virtual will soon be preferred to the real world, but that's because people have been trained to value their deaths over their lifes. any of the things you are most concerned about come from that.

No, I don’t believe in such a world…, I oppose anything that could be against nature, you know how I think about this. What I am trying to say with “a second world”, should be understood as a “parallel world of sound”, which comes from digital.

It is true; it is not bad already what you can do with only digital, but what is going on lately is just too much.

My idea, anyway, perhaps is not much related with “emulating” one of the old delays, I think rather in new staff, in things what would bring amazing realms of creation, something like it has happened in relation with 3D. Yes, this is a cool analogy; I like it because 3D has achieved an amazing level of development. The point with 3D is that you can do amazing things that are not necessarily similar to the real world, you can create unreal scenarios and beings and this is great as a tool for expression of ideas. In the same way, I think digital can achieve bigger and bigger things, as programming, languages, methodologies and computer processing size increases. This is more an less my point.

[fra77x]

You are slowly getting to my words. Thanks. It's already happening.

I'm just kidding/arguing but i'm right. No offend..

My english should be awful... I'm working on that sorry. It's difficult to use a second language.

[Nestor]

You are slowly getting to my words. Thanks. It's already happening.

I'm just kidding/arguing but i'm right. No offend..

My english should be awful... I'm working on that sorry. It's difficult to use a second language.

It's ok, don't worry..., jus try not to use a third language... that nobody is speaking...

[fra77x]

For me sarcasm is second nature.

[hubird]

What a nonsensical debate
fra77x, sorry to say this, but you interpret Gary's words and explained positions quite wrong.
Better said, you see ghosts

edit: just let my post hanging too long (tv), but I see similar comments now

[fra77x]

If you regard the words "don't get fooled guys digital sound is inferior to "reality" blah blah" as gosts and my aim to argue that as a don quixote action then ok.

Have i clicked by mistake to the "planet - analogue heaven" website?

[hubird]

I just saw quite balanced statements from Gary regarding that debate.

He's practizing a studio, with both hardware and software.
You are a develloper of software and an audio engineer.
So it could be an interesting debate.
You need him...to convince us of your view.

I just feel confused about the dichtomy of anaog vs digital and real vs virtual.
What is the relevant criterium here for the equations?

[fra77x]

In three months my friend. No conviction. Proof. It's simple.

[hubird]

for a proof you need a parallel proces...
You can only show ('proof') virtual mixes or instruments can sound good.

[fra77x]

Parallel?

I think when everybody agree on a subject we have a proof.

You can only show ('proof') virtual mixes or instruments can sound good.

Don't understand

some meaning of proof?

[hubird]

sorry, I meant analog/real against virtual/digital: for a test or proof you need at least two...to compare.
But your proof as a proof will be useless, as no one argues such a mix or virtual instrument would be inferior.

I just finished a few re-masterings of former mixes.
Amongst better eq-ing I decided to build up the whole mastering chain from start.
I started with creating enough headroom on the mixer inputs, to give headroom for the master fx's.
This way I was able to give the right input to the Vinco, for just that little extra pressure with an analog feel.
Sounds great now.
If that's true, does this proof anything regarding the initial debate?
No.
You are right about the advantage of many plugins like compressors.
But that's the right arguement on the wrong place, as it's not relevant for the sound debate

[fra77x]

Ahh,
i mean i will show you my album which is totally digital and totally scope and we will discuss the sound in contrast with other material which we 'll assume that have analog gear on their construction....

We will judge warmth, depth, impact, solidity, transparency, air and that kind of sound aesthetics

[garyb]

really, it's a STOOOOPID debate because-
1. i have already acknowledged that digital and virtual both sound great.
2. you can only prove that your mix does indeed sound "good", not that it sounds better or as good as hardware. this is because there isn't an exact same mix in hardware to compare to.
3. i do almost all of my work virtually using sequencers like Cubase and mixes in Scope.
4. you don't have enough experience with real(non-virtual) high-end gear to compare with in your own mind.

when used in a method relating to computers, "model" = "simulation"
a simulation is =/= to the actual thing, since it's a representation of a real thing.

can it still be art?
sure!

[fra77x]

1. i have already acknowledged that digital and virtual both sound great.

ok

2. you can only prove that your mix does indeed sound "good", not that it sounds better or as good as hardware. this is because there isn't an exact same mix in hardware to compare to.

If it sounds as good as it should be for that is fine. If it sounds better. A man can tell that.

3. i do almost all of my work virtually using sequencers like Cubase and mixes in Scope.

ok

4. you don't have enough experience with real(non-virtual) high-end gear to compare with in your own mind.

Don't care. The result is what counts. I regurarly AB study mixes for years. I know the sound of analogue equipment.

Yes it is art.

when used in a method relating to computers, "model" = "simulation"
a simulation is =/= to the actual thing, since it's a representation of a real thing.

You are using the terms with derogatory style. And analog equipment are simulations of the ideal waves and models of functionality.
Then nothing is real but nature's sound. But nature's sound has no mentality. Only human has that. And he uses instruments to express himself, to create, explore. He doesn't uses "poor approximations or simulations" but real state-of-the-art instruments of different mechanics. And only art is real. Because it has mentality. Nature is pretty stupid... Real is stupid.


p.s. language sexism not intend

[garyb]

art is nonsense.
non
sense

art comes from artifice
ar·ti·fice/ˈɑrtəfɪs/ Show Spelled [ahr-tuh-fis]
noun
1. a clever trick or stratagem; a cunning, crafty device or expedient; wile.
2. trickery; guile; craftiness.
3. cunning; ingenuity; inventiveness: a drawing-room comedy crafted with artifice and elegance.
4. a skillful or artful contrivance or expedient.

it is opinion. it is a trick. it is not real, except that it might be communication.

i like art, but i know that art is merely product.


there was nothing prejudicial about my use of terms like "simulation".

a sound hitting the diaphram of a mic and translated to an electrical signal is not a simulation of anything. it is the energy of the sound transformed from mechanical to electrical energy. it is the same energy. if you digitize it and reduce it to a series of numbers, it has become a representation. i use these words because they have precise meanings and implications that have nothing to do with opinions or point of veiw(well, as much as possible, considering that language is only a symbolic representation of reality)....

either you have the english skills and intelligence to get my message or you do not. if i come and hit you with a baseball bat, you will know the difference between reality(your smashed head) and virtual reality(the hollywood movie where i smash you head on film using cgi, but never actually hit you).

virtual is not real. it is virtually real.
vir·tu·al/ˈvɜrtʃuəl/ Show Spelled [vur-choo-uhl]
adjective
1. being such in power, force, or effect, though not actually or expressly such: a virtual dependence on charity.
2. Optics.
a. noting an image formed by the apparent convergence of rays geometrically, but not actually, prolonged, as the image formed by a mirror (opposed to real ).
b. noting a focus of a system forming virtual images.
3. temporarily simulated or extended by computer software: a virtual disk in RAM; virtual memory on a hard disk.

for music and film, virtual reality is more than sufficient.

[fra77x]

art is nonsense

ok. So it's not a bad idea to change job. That is an art field! Artists these days! Crazy people

Art is not the artifact. Greek arti "just," artios "complete, suitable,". Άρτιος. In greek it's Τέχνη and τεχνική the technique - the methods we use to build something.

It's definately not so simple as you think about it.

[hubird]

eh...

[garyb]

yes, technique = trick.

that doesn't necessarily mean "bad". when a magician does something well, we say "good trick!".

tricking people is not bad, necessarily. i do it all the time. it's why they pay me for my music.

let's lose the romance and go back to reality. even though i have made it clear that i like and appreciate the virtual, you take offense that i say that the virtual is not as important as the actual and real. really? really?

i never said "x tool is useless because it's not real" or "isotope sucks". what i said was that it's good to rememebr that while these good products exist and are useful, they're really an imitation of the actual hardware and the actual thing is always better than the imitation. how can that even be up for debate? i'm glad to take the stand if only to be someone who remembers the difference. when you trasnsfer your consciousness into the virtual world and say "how great!", i'm always going to laugh and say that the real world is superior and the playworld is for play.