Its been a long journey with MTS...

[Whoopysnorp]

No argument here, except inasmuch as I personally don't like the sound of sequenced/sampled/beefed-up drums (in most kinds of music, anyway) and I think it's a shame that they have become an accepted standard. If I were doing what you do for a living, though, I'd use sampled/programmed drums as my go-to, simply because that's the only viable option that allows a composer to put out the expected volume of work.

 

[Mike P]

No argument here, except inasmuch as I personally don't like the sound of sequenced/sampled/beefed-up drums (in most kinds of music, anyway) and I think it's a shame that they have become an accepted standard. If I were doing what you do for a living, though, I'd use sampled/programmed drums as my go-to, simply because that's the only viable option that allows a composer to put out the expected volume of work.

What's really ironic is that there was a backlash by musicians in the 80's when drum machines appeared on nearly every hit record but now, producers and drummers attempt to emulate that drum machine sound with samples, recording cymbal-less and drums are mostly lifeless due to every single record being in perfect time with Beat Detective.

 

[rhequiem]

So what's the difference between "fake" drums and "fake" guitar? Aren't there many variables to recording guitars (microphone, mic placement, speakers, etc, etc) that could be easily accomplished with a high-quality modeler like an Axe FX? If people here could fairly quickly pick out that you're using sampled drums but your clients can't, what makes you think that they would be able to pick out a digital guitar? I understand there's a history and trend here, but trends change (duh). I think that's why this topic is so controversial, personally. I can see how we could possibly be on the cusp of trends changing, with modelling becoming more convincing with new technologies (like the Axe [at least the programming aspects of it] and the Kempler profiling amp, which basically samples guitar like I imagine these drums have been sampled). The Axe may be a compromise, but for those who can't afford a room full of boutique tube amps (and who aren't convinced that the MTS system is for them) any more than you can afford to bring in a session drummer for your work, it could be an adequate solution.

 

[Mike P]

So what's the difference between "fake" drums and "fake" guitar?

Please give me an example of "fake" drums. The only "fake" drums that I'm aware of are those created by a synthesizer, digital or analog.

Sample libraries like Toontrack, Slate, etc. record REAL drums in REAL recording studios, often to tape machines using the highest quality microphones and mic preamps in the world. The Toontrack libraries are not processed in any way, shape or form: NO compression, NO EQ. The Slate libraries are different, offering pre-processed drums for sound replacement.

Aren't there many variables to recording guitars (microphone, mic placement, speakers, etc, etc) that could be easily accomplished with a high-quality modeler like an Axe FX?

If people here could fairly quickly pick out that you're using sampled drums but your clients can't, what makes you think that they would be able to pick out a digital guitar?

"Picking out" drum samples and digital guitars is pretty easy for anyone with an ear and even a modicum of experience. The difference is the end product. How many excellent recordings have you heard using sample libraries and digital guitars and basses? Personally speaking, I've never heard one.

I understand there's a history and trend here, but trends change (duh). I think that's why this topic is so controversial, personally. I can see how we could possibly be on the cusp of trends changing, with modelling becoming more convincing with new technologies (like the Axe [at least the programming aspects of it] and the Kempler profiling amp, which basically samples guitar like I imagine these drums have been sampled).

First off, Axe FX and Kempler are not convincing. Secondly, with the overwhelming majority of music being produced today using drum samples, I'm hardly in the minority. Plus, you're completely missing the fact that sample libraries are NOT a digital emulation - they're recorded drums and fit seamlessly in any mix.

The Axe may be a compromise, but for those who can't afford a room full of boutique tube amps (and who aren't convinced that the MTS system is for them) any more than you can afford to bring in a session drummer for your work, it could be an adequate solution.

Terrible analogy. Just terrible. Once again, drum samples have been used prominently for decades, drum machines for even longer. Digital guitars have yet to be accepted by mainstream producers because they don't sound realistic it's much easier to throw up microphones for guitars, bass, horns, hell, even a string quartet. But drums, due their nature, require a ton of gear AND expertise, not to mention, serious cash, to record properly.

I could easily "afford" to record a live drummer but it's an absolutely ridiculous measure to take considering I placed more than 175 tracks in 2011 with sample libraries. Why spend $10k when it's completely unnecessary? What kind of business model is that?

 

[rhequiem]

Please give me an example of "fake" drums. The only "fake" drums that I'm aware of are those created by a synthesizer, digital or analog.

I would say they are "fake" in the way that they aren't being played by a real human, but sequenced through software. If they were that easily picked out by some forumites here, I'm just thinking that they may not be as "real" as a "real" drummer, no matter what the trend is.

Sample libraries like Toontrack, Slate, etc. record REAL drums in REAL recording studios, often to tape machines using the highest quality microphones and mic preamps in the world. The Toontrack libraries are not processed in any way, shape or form: NO compression, NO EQ. The Slate libraries are different, offering pre-processed drums for sound replacement.

So if someone recorded a "real" guitar playing every note on the fret board through a tube amp in the same manner as the drums are recorded, and then it were sequenced and modified through software, this would be cool?

"Picking out" drum samples and digital guitars is pretty easy for anyone with an ear and even a modicum of experience. The difference is the end product. How many excellent recordings have you heard using sample libraries and digital guitars and basses? Personally speaking, I've never heard one.

It seems like it was fairly easy for some of the people here to recognize that your drums were sequenced, so I am just proposing that it might be a similar situation (and I am proposing because I have no real experience,0 I am just playing devil's advocate to further the discussion hehe). I have personally heard comparison recordings on the Fractal forums between tube amps and the Axe emulations that I personally had a very difficult time differentiating between. I imagine in a mix it would be even more difficult to do so. That is just my personal experience, however, and I imagine your situation is different. However, most people that listen to the final product are probably not anywhere near as trained as you are, nor have the playback gear that you do, so I imagine it isn't unreasonable to think that they probably hear something similar to what I do.

I understand there's a history and trend here, but trends change (duh). I think that's why this topic is so controversial, personally. I can see how we could possibly be on the cusp of trends changing, with modelling becoming more convincing with new technologies (like the Axe [at least the programming aspects of it] and the Kempler profiling amp, which basically samples guitar like I imagine these drums have been sampled).

Terrible analogy. Just terrible. Once again, drum samples have been used prominently for decades, drum machines for even longer. Digital guitars have yet to be accepted by mainstream producers because they don't sound realistic it's much easier to throw up microphones for guitars, bass, horns, hell, even a string quartet.

I could easily "afford" to record a live drummer but it's an absolutely ridiculous measure to take considering I placed more than 175 tracks in 2011 with sample libraries. Why spend $10k when it's completely unnecessary? What kind of business model is that?

I wasn't really commenting on the business model in general, because I am not a part of that business. It seems like trends and what other people are doing seem to be a large factor of the acceptability of things like digital emulations, then? So, if one day digital guitars and such become the norm, you would be more open to it? Just to clarify, I am not trying to convince you to use the Axe (never have!), it's just rare to actually have one of these discussions with someone who is not only in the industry, but who also has a level head and a sharp intellect about it! Thanks for continuing to contribute, Mike I'm fascinated by this topic!

 

[Mike P]

I would say they are "fake" in the way that they aren't being played by a real human, but sequenced through software. If they were that easily picked out by some forumites here, I'm just thinking that they may not be as "real" as a "real" drummer, no matter what the trend is.

Well, that's not "fake". I'm a human, am I not? Whether I play the drums in through a kit or use the pencil tool to create each beat and each drum track, I'm still human using recorded sounds. It's no different than me or Hans Zimmer writing orchestral parts in Nuendo or Cubase. Instead of pencil and paper, it's a mouse and Edit Window.

Furthermore, the current "trend", oh for the past 20 years or so, has been to edit drum tracks, either by cutting tape or in a DAW, so they're in perfect time. In my opinion, that's no different than editing in a Drum Window. You're changing what the drummer played, moving parts around on a grid.

So if someone recorded a "real" guitar playing every note on the fret board through a tube amp in the same manner as the drums are recorded, and then it were sequenced and modified through software, this would be cool?

Sequenced? What, is this 1980? :lol:

Dude, those types of libraries have been available for quite a while. EWQL Fab Four collection and Ministry of Rock are exactly as you described. EWQL sampled instruments used by the Beatles, Mesa/Boogies, Marshall's, etc. and offer them in a library. It's certainly not for me, since I've been playing guitar since the age of four but for non-guitarist composers, I've heard they are very good.

As to your question of "okay", well, that's up to the composer/producer, isn't it? I have no need for such a sample collection but I do have needs for orchestral instruments, organ, electric pianos, clavinets, pianos, etc.

Speaking of keyboards, I always play my parts and don't need to edit because I've played since I was 10 and learned to play on a Hammond M3. And before you call the NI B4mkII "Fake", I think Rami Jaffe would like a word.

It seems like it was fairly easy for some of the people here to recognize that your drums were sequenced,

There's that word again. For the record, all music is sequenced.

so I am just proposing that it might be a similar situation (and I am proposing because I have no real experience,0 I am just playing devil's advocate to further the discussion hehe). I have personally heard comparison recordings on the Fractal forums between tube amps and the Axe emulations that I personally had a very difficult time differentiating between. I imagine in a mix it would be even more difficult to do so. That is just my personal experience, however, and I imagine your situation is different. However, most people that listen to the final product are probably not anywhere near as trained as you are, nor have the playback gear that you do, so I imagine it isn't unreasonable to think that they probably hear something similar to what I do.

This business is rapidly changing and believe it or not, for the better, IMO. Nearly every music supervisor I've dealt with in the past year has been a Berklee School of Music graduate. These kids KNOW music, music history, engineering and production. For high profile gigs (Feature Films and "Free" Network Television), only the highest production standards are allowed. And for the record, I've not had issues with any of my tracks to date.

What your missing here is that while I'm using sample libraries for the drums, they sound excellent. Nothing is out of place, they sit in the mix properly and support the songs. Pull up one of my links and compare it to the latest Godsmack, Disturbed or Slash record and I think you'll find my drums to be on par with those commercial releases sonically, if not better.

I understand there's a history and trend here, but trends change (duh). I think that's why this topic is so controversial, personally. I can see how we could possibly be on the cusp of trends changing, with modelling becoming more convincing with new technologies (like the Axe [at least the programming aspects of it] and the Kempler profiling amp, which basically samples guitar like I imagine these drums have been sampled).

Comparing drums to guitars is apples to oranges. As I've noted several times already, just about every producer or mixer working today are using drum samples in part or in whole. The reason for that is because they sound amazing and it's easier to supplement existing drum tracks (or replace them altogether) after the fact.

Digital guitar emulations, on the other hand, do not sound amazing compared to their tube/analog counterparts. If you're mixing an album and can't "Fix the guitars in the mix", they're re-cut or re-amped. They're not replaced with an Axe FX or a POD.

The bottom line is that as a composer and a producer, I have to make choices. I have to produce the highest quality music I can in order to get placements, score films and make a living. High end sample libraries are absolutely necessary for that to be accomplished. I can't just use any $100 sample library. To the contrary, I probably have over $15k in sample libraries and a pair of 2 TB drives to house them.

Also, it's my choice and my decision to record tube/analog guitar and bass amps. Recording bass direct from a preamp or direct box is not an option for me because I truly dislike that sound. Recording guitars direct from a tube head or a digital emulation is not an option for me either because I truly dislike the sound and the feel, not to mention the fact that it's neither fun nor inspiring in anyway, shape or form.

I wasn't really commenting on the business model in general, because I am not a part of that business. It seems like trends and what other people are doing seem to be a large factor of the acceptability of things like digital emulations, then? So, if one day digital guitars and such become the norm, you would be more open to it? Just to clarify, I am not trying to convince you to use the Axe (never have!), it's just rare to actually have one of these discussions with someone who is not only in the industry, but who also has a level head and a sharp intellect about it! Thanks for continuing to contribute, Mike I'm fascinated by this topic!

If there comes a day when a computer program or dedicated box can perfectly emulate and replicate guitar amps, I would most certainly be on board. But to date, my opinion is that they've got a long way to go.

This reminds of conversations I've had with up-and-coming producers or friends trying to record at home, etc. It's always "Well, if I can get within 85-90% of your productions, I'd be happy". The problem is that extra 10-15% far outweighs the previous 85-90% because that's where the real magic lies.

 

[Kapo_Polenton]

Mike, in the time that you dissected all of our posts you could have composed drum parts for three hit songs! :lol: Ok I think nobody is going to win this one.

 

[Mike P]

Mike, in the time that you dissected all of our posts you could have composed drum parts for three hit songs! :lol:

Ha! Actually, the last few days have been "Admin" days, where I convert files to 16 bit, 48k, provide an enormous amount of meta-data for each individual track and ftp files. My least favorite thing to do!

Tomorrow, I begin composing and producing again. Woo-hoo!

Ok I think nobody is going to win this one.

Hmm, I haven't viewed this discussion as "Win-Lose" but more of Q & A.

To me, it's been cool and a lot of fun and I hope I haven't bruised any egos or hurt feelings along the way.

 

[rhequiem]

I agree with this 100%. I don't think Mike or I, as the major contributors to this thread, have any feeling that the other is trying to "win" this conversation. This is just a conversation between reasonable adults about a very intricate and complicated (and controversial) topic - it's like music philosophy lol. My respect level for Mike has actually increased significantly due to this thread. I think it'd fascinating to sit down with him over a couple beers, as I'm sure the conversation would be engaging and thoughtful. I'll respond to your last post later, Mike. I just got home from my first martial arts class in a few years and I am wiped out hehe

Hmm, I haven't viewed this discussion as "Win-Lose" but more of Q & A.

To me, it's been cool and a lot of fun and I hope I haven't bruised any egos or hurt feelings along the way.

 

[Hamner1]

I would agree for the most part the information has been very useful & insightful. I actually avoided this thread from about page 67 until just now. In fact I skipped those inbetween page 7 & 10 as I thought about page 7 and even a little earlier there was some back and forth hostility/agitation/or what have you. That may be in part due to the method we are communicatng in (text on a screen). You can tell that we have at least 3 or 4 passionate people on this forum regarding recording & production. Oddly eough that is not a bad thing. I'm sure we would all be pissed if the standard was to put out a subpar product.

I will have to go back & see what I missed.