AP Mastering's HUGE MISTAKE about Hardware in Ethan Winer Interview 

Thanks so much! Means a lot to hear that from you! Great to see you putting out awesome content on RU-vid. Subbed 😎👍

Totally agree with you.

You are missing the other part - the actual artist. There performance will change based on what they are hearing. Doesn't matter if the recording is well done or not, the performance almost always trumps the "recording"...

​@@pb3662 , Which is pointless, because, which artist do you work with? Which gear does the artist like, how much gear do you have? This is a debate or discussion which his ultimately pointless. When I work with Ray Davies, Or the Stones, yes the Stones, in the studio, they can afford choice, if you only have one outboard compressor or a few things, that is not choice. If you are a fully fletched recording facility with both, then, great, however, going back to this redundant video: the artist will change their performance, means nothing, a good artist will always do a good take regardless of the gear, also having outboard gear, does not dictate and automatic better performance.

Yeah absolutely agree with you. For most genres I work with it’s the best way to work fast

I mention all of those points. Maybe you shouldn’t have stopped at 3 minutes hey.

It's interesting, because Brian Eno came in later on Low. And did some extremely creative recording work on the second instrumental side, especially on 'Warszawa'. And the way both Visconti and Eno worked on that record is similar to how many electronic musicians tend to work now. Collaboration, taking turns, even flitting in and out of projects. Because, when you now have almost infinite options. The only way to decide anything is to start commit like that, as if it's tape. So, sometimes electronic musicians will use a DAW more like it's a modern tape machine than musicians from more traditional backgrounds will. Building each layer, inspired by the last one, as Bowie did with the wordless vocals on that beautiful piece. Neither is more right than the other, but I think it highlights the difference between two difference approaches to recording. The first being fidelity to the performance, and the second being creative recording. And both have long histories, with plenty of recent recording engineers adhering more to the former approach (e.g. Steve Albini), and plenty of venerable engineers adhering to latter (e.g. Geoff Emerick). It depends on budget too, the latter approach with bands in big studios entails bigger budgets, because it's exploratory. Whereas the former would often be more a case of capturing the album the band had already rehearsed and performed many many times - which suits both the budget and the aesthetic of the punk Albini was working with. Whereas more electronic based albums will tend to be recorded at home, or in collaboration across homes, so taking more time for creative recording isn't so much of an issue. Getting people together in one room is harder though ...

By the way all what you’re saying about setting up eq, compression etc to get a better performance by the singer can be done with a digital mixer like the XR18. The singer hears all the effects but the recording to the computer is 100% clean. No latency issues as well. These mixers are very cheap and capable and in this mode are effectively audio interfaces. Just balancing the discussion. If you have and like hardware ffs use it. If not then go the other way. Neither is right or wrong.

I agree with you. I make this exact point at the end of the video 👍

Thanks for the response. I just want to say that i respect what you do on your channel, but I have some issues with the specific examples youve given. Respectfully i'd like to put forward my thoughts on them. A lot to unpack here, but here we go. 1. Are you saying that using hardware in a session would be "experimenting" and that therefore you wouldn't get much done in your session? I don't experiment with gear in a recording, I use the tools that work for that particular job. Filters, light EQ on some things, compression only where suitable. Doesn't take any longer to set up a session like this and actually makes workflow quicker once you get going as the artists can hear what's happening in their mix better, the headphone mixes are better AND there's less to do later in the mixing so you can actually save your clients money. 2. Many bands don't wear headphones? I would counter this with yes they do?! And if not, they probably should be. My case point for using hardware in tracking is for tracking contemporary music. If it's rap or pop, they're 100% using headphones. Bands needing a click, obviously headphones. I think you're taking a large liberty here. 3. You've regretted hitting comps too hard before. Well that's the lesson isn't it. We've all been there. Just go easier next time. No biggie. 4. If you're on a Neve or SSL, why would you even bother with plugins at all? May some reverb, but in a studio like that, there's probably some amazing lexicons, bricastis or plates or even a chamber! You have the worlds best processors at your fingertips. Use them! Are you saying you wouldn't engage at least some filtering or slight EQ in this situation? You wouldn't use any of the amazing compressors or outboard that would be available in a studio like that? Not even gently put a vocal through an 1176 or la2a? Come on man! I'm going to reiterate this again, if you process on the way in, for vocal/bass overdubs or live band sessions, the filtering, EQ and compression where possible WILL result in a better headphone mix, and a better performance from your artists. It's a lot to control in a session but it's actually no different to when i work FOH in a venue. Challenging, a lot going on, but the end result is a better performance. And that makes mixing easier down the line. Also less effort in mixing later because you made the tough choices.

@@diyrecordingstudio ok i'll hit back what i'm thinking: 1. it takes time to patch in the gear and get good settings with the band playing live. i'm a mastering engineer mainly but when i do sessions i would not take on rappers. i work with live bands that play together and often have around 20 mics. i do it just for fun. i get paid less than mastering and its higher stress but very fun. if youre setting up 20 mics and want to track the core takes of an album, there's many things you need to get right QUICK. sure there's lots of fun bits of kit but we're already going through a neve and neumann mics in a good sounding room 2. yep many bands i work with don't need headphones. jazz players especially will laugh at you if you try to get them to play to a click. same for swing and psych rock and many styles that are live based approaches. even with vocals, for financial reasons, wed track the band on the neve and then do vocals in my studio afterwards 3. yes 4. again, it's a money thing. some bands have money and want to take their time and even mix at the nice studio. i love doing that. but most don't nowadays. most just went to get the music to tape as quick as possible. i do often set up an 1176 recording wet and dry for the vocal mic but not much more because it's too time intensive. if you think it's so fast, go record a 7 piece jazz band that wants to track playing live with 20 mics and then set all that up and also patch in hardware fx on everything and sit there and get all the right settings while the bands are getting impatient and complaining they want to start recording. if you are speaking about rappers then sure but it's been 20 years since i recorded rappers ha ha

@APMastering In my video I very clearly stated that I was specifically talking about a use case for hardware in contemporary music recording in pop, rap, rock, Indy, metal. I also agreed when it came to classical and jazz too, cleaner IS the right approach there. So what are you arguing about then? When you say bands, you’re talking about jazz. That’s a different artist, style and approach. The problem is both you and Ethan said cleaner is better, without stipulating specific use cases. You gave absolutist answers to a complex problem. In future if you’re going to argue a point or opinion, be specific about your use cases and workflow. We basically agree here but you chose to be vague in your original argument and too general in your original video. You’re arguing with me but you’re not even talking about the same genres and use cases I very specifically mention in this video.

@@diyrecordingstudio well the original video was an interview, i just agreed and moved on, it wasn't a thorough exploration of the topic from my side. but even rock, especially jammy bands like psych often don't bother with phones. jazz also is contemporary music... the comet is coming for example.... very contemporary great stuff. i could imagine a band like that preferring no headphones for the initial whole band takes and then headphones or monitors for overdubs depending on the instrument. also, i'm not sure why i'd hire a nice studio in the first place to record rap. why do you need a 40 channel neve with a bunch of outboard, a big live room and 30 microphones to record some dude rapping? in that case i'd track at my own studio. same with pop vocals. same with rnb and everything where you've got a small amount of musicians with a low channel count, especially solo vocalists. i think the main use case for tracking through hardware is with bands who have a good budget and want to multitrack everything separately. like starting with the drums to a click, then bass, then guitar etc. but in that case, unless we're working with a big budget what is typical in my experience is tracking the drums in the fancy studio, then you can use the outboard direct, for example hammering the room mics through a pair of 1176s but also recording a dry version for safety, but then we'd go to my studio for the rest of the overdrive as only drums actually need it in that case. recording bands who play live is otherwise the main use case for a nice studio and i would feel like a pillock sitting behind a neve with a single u87 set up for a rapper. but given huge budget, sure why not. my points are mostly about budget and what is commonplace in my experience. where you are from maybe studio time is more affordable relative to average income

Are you taking the piss? At this point I seriously don’t know if you’re trolling me or not. I never once said “everyone should take hiphop artists to a big budget studio with a 40 channel console. I said I would use a style of pre, eq and compression during tracking to suit that. 1 channel!!!! Honestly I just feel like you are wilfully ignorant to try and continue arguing your point when we aren’t even taking about the same thing. As soon as there is a vocalist in the room or guitar amps recorded live in another room or any other number of things, headphones are necessary in a modern contemporary recording session. You’re clutching at this one very specific use case which definitely is not common for most bands or artists.

Because he works in audio science and spent years designing consoles used to make hits.

@@chrisstaubyn Can you point me to the list of the hits made on the console?

Ethan Winer doesn't have plugins.

and that exactly is the solution. recording thru stuff you can't change later is kinda stupid. but if you have the raw file aswell, you'll be just fine. 👍