How to find that last 10-15% 'commercial' sound fully ITB?

[Uncle E]

WR is eager for the fray and brings receipts. The wise among us beware the quoth.

[VOODOO U]

WR, feel free to correct me, but I believe is compensated for his knowledge.

He will not be excused. I demand answers.

If you make assertions about outboard gear over ITB tools, he'll likely hold you to it, for I'm guessing morbid curiosity?

Oh my! Fear the bunny rabbit!! It's s not about just using outboard gear btw. You could mix it up with software and hardware. My whole point is you can't get a pro commercial recording doing EVERYTHING in the box. It's like saying you can get a pro recording with a Tascam 4 track and have no need to go into a studio.
Can you get an excellent recording? Yes.
Can you get a pro commercial ready label supported recording? No. I don't see that happening all ITB. But if someone can prove me wrong, amen. Im man enough to say I was wrong.

If someone cant make something sound good or professional, its not the tools.

Sound good is one thing, sound pro is another (to the standards of the powers that be) so they should be kept separate.
Let's not kid ourselves, there are some tools that, no matter how good you are, you just can't get a good sound out of it. Whether it be software or hardware. I guess Andrew Weiss could be an exception since he managed to get good commercial releases for Ween who recorded using 4 track portables while sniffing glue (nothing wrong with that. I support it).

Mixing With The Masters showcases lots of mixes that have basically defined modern commercial music (for better or worse). Tons, and tons of completely ITB award winning mixes in case that matters to anyone.

Cool. Ill check it out.

[BertKoor]

[/thread]

[legendCNCD]

Yeah, another one to the ignore/block list.

[whyterabbyt]

If someone cant make something sound good or professional, its not the tools.

(late edit : oops, attributed quote to wrong person)

exactly. obviously for someone with insufficient knowledge or skill, its far easier to excuse that by focussing on the tools, or how the tools are actually implemented, or whatever.
but tools arent magic; they allow you to implement your skills, they dont replace them.
and that's the case for all skills, whether people think they're entitled to some sort of 'shortcut', or are actually prepared to work at it. experts become experts by practicing their skills and accumulating experience of what works and what does not work.
those things are also known as 'learning' and 'knowledge'.
if you dont have the necessary level of knowledge then you are not an expert. If you are not prepared to attain the necessary level of knowledge then you will never become one
that's true no matter how you posture about choices of tools on the internet.

[EfreetiSultan]

Yeah, another one to the ignore/block list.

Yeah let's just stick our heads in the sand to any and all opinions not fitting your world view.....

Voodoo U makes very good points. I can't think of a single artist that has not used at least Some hardware in the process. As for pop music (i.e top 100 billboard) there's literally zero that has not been mixed and mastered with tons of outboard gear.

For my genre which is goa trance, most artists are 100% itb. And to me alot of it sounds awesome. But the top layer of artists of this genre, all use tons of hardware. (astral projection, filteria, Cosmosis, mindsphere etc) they use all the classics. Roland, nord, access, waldorf, korg etc etc not to mention the gear used for mixing.

And for the successful artists that do use all itb stuff, most of them at least have very expensive outboard dacs and summing units (e-clip, artifact303 etc)
And the ones that don't, sound way worse in comparison.

So instead of putting the user on ignore like a little *******, prove him wrong?

[whyterabbyt]

I can't think of a single artist that has not used at least Some hardware in the process. As for pop music (i.e top 100 billboard) there's literally zero that has not been mixed and mastered with tons of outboard gear.

You realise its up to you to prove this, dont you? Russell's Teapot applies here, to both of you.

So instead of putting the user on ignore like a little *******, prove him wrong?

With as much evidence as you are providing?

[seafire]

, filteria, Cosmosis,

New collab (ultravibe) album coming in Sept, sounds very good from the teasers

[EfreetiSultan]

I can't think of a single artist that has not used at least Some hardware in the process. As for pop music (i.e top 100 billboard) there's literally zero that has not been mixed and mastered with tons of outboard gear.

You realise its up to you to prove this, dont you? Russell's Teapot applies here, to both of you.

So instead of putting the user on ignore like a little *******, prove him wrong?

With as much evidence as you are providing?

Hmm I'm not sure what it is you want me to prove, could you specify? You want me to prove top layer of artists use outboard gear? Sure I can do that, but a bit silly isn't it? You already know that.

[EfreetiSultan]

, filteria, Cosmosis,

New collab (ultravibe) album coming in Sept, sounds very good from the teasers

I'm well aware and looking forward

[whyterabbyt]

Hmm I'm not sure what it is you want me to prove, could you specify?

Sure, it was just the thing you asserted, but I'll reiterate it for you...

As for pop music (i.e top 100 billboard) there's literally zero that has not been mixed and mastered with tons of outboard gear.

Just that cheers.

You want me to prove top layer of artists use outboard gear?

Is that what you stated? Okay, that too then.

Sure I can do that, but a bit silly isn't it?

What, proving your claim on the very topic of discussion is silly? Erm, not normally, no.

You already know that.

Lets for now assume its not yet proven to me. Then I'd possibly ask for proof of it, and when that proof is provided, I could both agree with your assertion, and your assertion as to what I know of the truth of your assertion...
Oh wait...

[EfreetiSultan]

Hmm I'm not sure what it is you want me to prove, could you specify?

Sure, it was just the thing you asserted, but I'll reiterate it for you...

As for pop music (i.e top 100 billboard) there's literally zero that has not been mixed and mastered with tons of outboard gear.

Just that cheers.

You want me to prove top layer of artists use outboard gear?

Is that what you stated? Okay, that too then.

Sure I can do that, but a bit silly isn't it?

What, proving your claim on the very topic of discussion is silly? Erm, not normally, no.

You already know that.

Lets for now assume its not yet proven to me. Then I'd possibly ask for proof of it, and when that proof is provided, I could both agree with your assertion, and your assertion as to what I know of the truth of your assertion...
Oh wait...

I get it now. You want me to prove things to you that you already know. Just to try to win an argument that you cannot win. Cause you already know all the top artists gets their mix and masters from the top mixers and mastering engineers.
How about this, name ONE artist currently on the billboard top 100, that has not gone through this process.

Or do you seriously want me to namedrop a list full of artists, where they were mixed, where they were mastered and to what label they were released?
I'm still kinda confused to what your endgame here is.

Ah, ofc you end your reply with that cute little "oh wait". That's always a good laugh

[whyterabbyt]

I get it now.

Nope, you really dont. But I did get something, ie that you would do what you could to avoid proving the assertion you'd made.

You want me to prove things to you that you already know.

Nope. I want you to prove the thing you asserted. Do you need that repeated, you seem to be having difficulty with understanding it.

Just to try to win an argument that you cannot win.

And what 'argument' would that be, then? Asking for proof of your argument isnt winning an argument, its offering you the opportunity to win. All you have to do is provide proof.

Cause you already know all the top artists gets their mix and masters from the top mixers and mastering engineers.

Nope.

How about this, name ONE artist currently on the billboard top 100, that has not gone through this process.

Why would I need to do that? S'funny that you both share the trait of demanding that I disprove some thing I didnt assert in response to me asking you for proof of your assertion.
Like I said, Russell's Teapot.

I think its safe to assume by now that you're avoiding backing up your claims, and I expect you will continue to do that, right?

[EfreetiSultan]

I get it now.

Nope, you really dont. But I did get something, ie that you would do what you could to avoid proving the assertion you'd made.

You want me to prove things to you that you already know.

Nope. I want you to prove the thing you asserted. Do you need that repeated, you seem to be having difficulty with understanding it.

Just to try to win an argument that you cannot win.

And what 'argument' would that be, then? Asking for proof of your argument isnt winning an argument, its offering you the opportunity to win. All you have to do is provide proof.

Cause you already know all the top artists gets their mix and masters from the top mixers and mastering engineers.

Nope.

How about this, name ONE artist currently on the billboard top 100, that has not gone through this process.

Why would I need to do that? S'funny that you both share the trait of demanding that I disprove some thing I didnt assert in response to me asking you for proof of your assertion.
Like I said, Russell's Teapot.

I think its safe to assume by now that you're avoiding backing up your claims, and I expect you will continue to do that, right?

So in other words, you expect me to namedrop 100 artists, where they got their mixes done, where they got their masters done, what equipment was used etc etc etc.
Instead of you, who claim otherwise, offer one single artist that indeed does everything itb?

Unfortunately you are more interested in argumentative discussion than actually being realistic. And it would be almost 2 hours of work for me to do what you ask me to do. And for what? It would be MUCH easier for you to simply show ONE artist that does it all itb from the top 100 billboard than me showing you the 99 that don't.

And I simply will not take 2 hours out of my day to prove to you something you already know is true.
Congratulations. You've won your argument. Does it feel as sweet as you had hoped?

I remember when I first won an Internet argument based on nothing but fallacies. I felt almost super human that whole day! Hopefully you'll feel that great today also.

[whyterabbyt]

So in other words, you expect me to namedrop 100 artists, where they got their mixes done, where they got their masters done, what equipment was used etc etc etc.

Well, that's the claim you made. Is that a problem?

Instead of you, who claim otherwise, offer one single artist that indeed does everything itb?

Please stop lying.

Unfortunately you are more interested in argumentative discussion than actually being realistic.

Asking for proof isnt argumentative discussion. Im not even having a discussion, Im just explaining over and over again that Im asking for proof, because you keep making shit up to avoid having to do so.

And it would be almost 2 hours of work for me to do what you ask me to do. And for what? It would be MUCH easier for you to simply show ONE artist that does it all itb from the top 100 billboard than me showing you the 99 that don't.

So there's only 99 that dont?

And I simply will not take 2 hours out of my day to prove to you something

but you said ' sure i can do that', so why the change of heart?

you already know is true.

And everyone round here, including me, is supposed to believe that I know it because you say so, I presume? Like the rest of your unproven argument?
I kinda get the feeling this is a weird variety of projection, that you're desparate for me to know it because you dont.

I mean its pretty clear by now that you dont know its true, that's why you're avoiding proving it.