NEW MINDSET: Best sound possible EFFICIENTLY

[ScrLk]

Could bad tools slow down learning?

Yes. I've seen threads on GS displaying analyses of plugins that are not boosting and cutting where they say they are. It's difficult to learn correctly when you're given false information.

But sure, "tools don't matter" - pure brilliance! /sarcasm

If you used your ears you wouldn't need to rely on your eyes to tell you what you hear. But, you can always use a scope since you're so technically detailed about it.

I'm pretty sure it's not bad plugins that is holding back all the bad musicians, but that's just a guess...

As an example it should be harder to learn what saturation sounds like when your overtones are inharmonically folding back and forth across the spectrum.

[10bd01]

If you used your ears you wouldn't need to rely on your eyes to tell you what you hear. But, you can always use a scope since you're so technically detailed about it.

I'm pretty sure it's not bad plugins that is holding back all the bad musicians, but that's just a guess...

I use my ears. You're assuming you know an awful lot about me for someone with so little information about me. Or are you referring to the person learning? A person learning, meaning a student:

a student is someone who is not yet experienced and whose ears may not be developed yet; not a master with a fully developed ability to listen and identify things. That's why they're learning. Associating the frequency they hear with their eyes with what they hear with their ears is a part of them learning how to identify frequencies so they can find those frequencies on a variety of tools. If they are misled and identify a frequency incorrectly when they are learning on one tool and then reach for that same frequency on another tool when their ears tell them they want more of that frequency it won't work and it will confuse them. This will slow down their learning process.

I think you're the only person in this thread who's positing perspectives such as "bad plugins hold back bad musicians" so you can then rail against it. Has anyone else here said such a thing? You're ghost boxing - get it together! If you want to respond to something feel free to respond to things we actually say. Better yet, drop it. I don't want to hijack this thread anymore conversing with you. I only responded to you in the first place to correct the culturally pervasive and erroneous notion that tools don't matter. The perspective is completely ridiculous and makes no sense, but people are spellbound by it because it sounds edgy and tough-master cool; it's harmful to the market and it's the perspective of someone that doesn't value the hard work that goes into making good tools or who can't recognize craftsmanship and utility enough to appreciate it. Tools matter. It's true. Deal with it. That doesn't mean tools make the musician. You appear to be conflating these two things; you're the only one doing it, and you're doing it to set up a perspective no one here has so you can then fight against it. You don't seem to be getting it and I've lost interest in trying to communicate it, so...

You can have the last word, I'm gone.

[Cancel Culture Club]

Could bad tools slow down learning?

Yes. I've seen threads on GS displaying analyses of plugins that are not boosting and cutting where they say they are. It's difficult to learn correctly when you're given false information.

But sure, "tools don't matter" - pure brilliance! /sarcasm

If you used your ears you wouldn't need to rely on your eyes to tell you what you hear. But, you can always use a scope since you're so technically detailed about it.

I'm pretty sure it's not bad plugins that is holding back all the bad musicians, but that's just a guess...

As an example it should be harder to learn what saturation sounds like when your overtones are inharmonically folding back and forth across the spectrum.

I'm pretty sure that's not going to make or break a song. But, If you can't hear the problems in your music then maybe there's something else missing.

[Cancel Culture Club]

You can have the last word, I'm gone.

Some people forget that making music is an artform, and with any artform the more time you put in the better it becomes, developing talent. It would be a lot easier for some people if it was all just a technical riddle that needed to be answered. Well, it's a mix of both and a difficult balance that only leads to a small percentage of top notch professionals.

It's all the invisible work and countless hours that people don't see, even with a scope...

[ScrLk]

Could bad tools slow down learning?

Yes. I've seen threads on GS displaying analyses of plugins that are not boosting and cutting where they say they are. It's difficult to learn correctly when you're given false information.

But sure, "tools don't matter" - pure brilliance! /sarcasm

If you used your ears you wouldn't need to rely on your eyes to tell you what you hear. But, you can always use a scope since you're so technically detailed about it.

I'm pretty sure it's not bad plugins that is holding back all the bad musicians, but that's just a guess...

As an example it should be harder to learn what saturation sounds like when your overtones are inharmonically folding back and forth across the spectrum.

I'm pretty sure that's not going to make or break a song. But, If you can't hear the problems in your music then maybe there's something else missing.

I mean when someone is learning new concepts like saturation.

[Cancel Culture Club]

I mean when someone is learning new concepts like saturation.

Sure, there are tons of plugins to help with learning. But, I was mostly referring to the OP.

Hi. I've been into electronic music production for 20 years and I've tryed all the best plugins possible, searching for the best sound quality, best compressors, the best analog emulations, the best limiters, etc. I got at a time that I stopped making music just because of this never ending search. And after 20 years I got at some conclusions:

They mentioned they stopped making music after searching for the best of everything for two decades. I'm only trying to help anyone willing to listen, that you don't need to spend 20 years finding out that it's not about the best tool.

It's all about who, their experience and taste...

[ScrLk]

It can become a distraction but then anything could be, like KVR or social media.

My own studying made me find out that not all plugins do what it says on the tin (properly). Ideally you have someone to help you with the technical side of pointing you to the best and most useful tools while you can focus on creative production yourself.

[Cancel Culture Club]

It can become a distraction but then anything could be, like KVR or social media.

My own studying made me find out that not all plugins do what it says on the tin (properly). Ideally you have someone to help you with the technical side of pointing you to the best and most useful tools while you can focus on creative production yourself.

I see your point. But, speaking from the point of studying and learning, it's probably wiser to focus on the musical side of things first. While learning the fundamentals of mixing with your stock plugins. I wouldn't even consider widening my arsenal if I haven't even mastered what I've already got.

It's too easy to be distracted by shiny new things when people are looking for inspiration or a quick way to get there. Everything great comes with time, why waste your life looking for shortcuts when you could of already started putting in the work to get you there.

I think a lot of people see the instant success of someone and have no clue about how much really went into it. If we're talking about the legends of music, then there's a certain level of expertise and mastering that goes into the entire process. It's a musical journey that can't be solved with better fidelity or personal preference alone, unless you're totally satisfied with the results.

[10bd01]

I see your point. But, speaking from the point of studying and learning, it's probably wiser to focus on the musical side of things first. While learning the fundamentals of mixing with your stock plugins. I wouldn't even consider widening my arsenal if I haven't even mastered what I've already got.

It's too easy to be distracted by shiny new things when people are looking for inspiration or a quick way to get there. Everything great comes with time, why waste your life looking for shortcuts when you could of already started putting in the work to get you there.

I think a lot of people see the instant success of someone and have no clue about how much really went into it. If we're talking about the legends of music, then there's a certain level of expertise and mastering that goes into the entire process. It's a musical journey that can't be solved with better fidelity or personal preference alone, unless you're totally satisfied with the results.

I'm back on.

You can't learn fundamentals from stock plugins - do stock plugins show you the difference between an Opto and a FET? Will you be learning about passive EQ's and their best use cases from your stock plugin? Maybe that's not "fundamental" to you, but it's definitely fundamental to the trade.

Tools are made for specific jobs, and a master of the craft will know which is the best tool to apply when to achieve the desired effect. Having specific tools for specific jobs leads to efficiency in execution. Learning what tool to apply to a use case that yields the best musical result in the least amount of time is an important part of the education of a future professional mixer and stock plugins won't teach you any of that. Sure, they can be a part of that education, but starting purely there as if in a bubble, not recognizing a larger market exists that makes tools built to be both musical and efficient and which are applicable to certain use cases isn't a fantastic education. I would say it's more helpful for someone intending on becoming a professional to understand the wide variety of tools and their use cases at the same time they're learning the fundamentals rather than learn the so-called fundamentals in isolation from the real world.

We have decades of tool makers focusing on creating the best tools in their specific domain, and each domain is applicable to different musical situations. You advise to ignore all of that and first use stock plugins. Your student will literally miss the forest for the tree (not even trees, tree). Mixing fundamentals so-called aren't complicated, it's the use cases that create complications, and if you're teaching your students to struggle through those use case complications with tools that aren't designed for them then you're a bad teacher IMO. One that's more interested in the student suffering under one's fundamentalist ideology than actually learning the best way to accomplish musical ends.

I understand you mean well, and you have some good points - yes, it doesn't help to be distracted by shiny new things any more than it does by anything else; yes, perceived instant success hides actual hard work.

And no, better fidelity doesn't make better music. But everyone who loves their music want's it to be in the best fidelity possible, unless they're into lo-fi, but then they will want the best lo-fi possible.

[10bd01]

[Accidental multi-post]

[10bd01]

[Accidental multi-post]

[GRUMP]

To make it short: you can't generate a blackhole without Eventide and Frequency Balance will always stay a buzzword without experiences

[ScrLk]

I know: I'll have the technical last word through this reply and then there's no more compulsive arguing. Win!

[callahanryan12]

I've been trying to be more efficient in my workflow lately as well and weeding out plugins I no longer need or that don't really sound better to my ears. To me, FabFilter is the winner of CPU efficiency, beautiful interface, and just overall a joy to use on every channel. I've tried Kush plugins and they sound good, but the GUI is really important to me and they just don't look as clean as FabFilter.

I don't know of another 0 latency limiter, but the Pro-L2 in transparent mode with lookahead at 0 is only 10ms of latency, which is pretty good.

[ScrLk]

I don't know of another 0 latency limiter, but the Pro-L2 in transparent mode with lookahead at 0 is only 10ms of latency, which is pretty good.

DMG TrackLimit has very low latency.