PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production Greatest music tech advance of decade?

I'm curious to see what others think the greatest technical advancement for musicians is over the last decade. In my opinion, I believe it has to be the availability of on-demand video of great teachers on just about any instrument or production technique you want to learn. What are your thoughts?

I think software tools have really advanced. Two that I have in mind are Melodyne and iZotope products.

Melodyne has really made break throughs in pitch correction and MIDI conversion.

iZotope's Ozone and Neutron have really come up with some good tools like Tonal Balance, Track Referencing, Mix Assistant, and TONS more.


These tech tools really make life easier for those of us who don't have the coin to visit a professional studio. They work flawlessly with our personal home recording studios.

I definitely agree it is software! Tools like BIAB, Reaper (or any modern DAW) and Izotope are the Great Equalizers that mean I can release professional tracks without taking a second mortgage to pay for musicians, studio recording/engineering and mastering!

And BIAB is def at the top of that list. It is nothing short of AMAZING what it can do! That is why I'm so passionate about seeing it fixed and improved.

For me it was affordable 24 bit A/D.

I can't remember the last time I thought about spending more than 30 seconds setting recording levels. I know that if I'm getting some green lights on my Scarlett, I've got more than enough clean signal to work with.

I know, kind of boring. But it makes getting clean ideas down so much easier and with less worry about noise.

-Scott

For me, it was Bandlab (Sonar reborn) as a free DAW. Impressive and totally free with many added features including Melodyne and several other mastering tools. Definitely the decade was a great advancement in software for the everyday user.

It would be the advances in software. Things like BiaB, Melodyne, Ozone.....to name only a few.... unheard of quality and ease of use.

Ditto on the software with an emphasis on the power to cost ratio of the latest DAW's. My Logic Pro X costs $199 which includes lifetime frequent upgrades, a zillion plug-ins, loops, sounds and drums.

Bud

Cheating a little, in that 2007 was 13 years ago, but I'm going to have to say Real Tracks.

I agree. What we have in Biab, soft synths and hard synths and our DAWs, including RB, would have cost us thousands of dollars 20-30 years ago. That would put all of us out of music for fun and I'll bet most of us would have stopped playing by now.

I think number 1 is the decade long continual advancement in mechanical and solid state memory technologies. In 2009 1 GB SD cards were expensive and hard drives were phasing from 40 GB to 80 GB storage space. It was common for computers to ship with 1 GB of ram and 4 GB was extravagant. I don't think consumer solid state drives were available in 2019.

Below are the specs for my first Mac in 2009. This was the base model. I ordered it with the terabyte drive and cheaply and easily upgraded it to 24 GB RAM.

Perhaps Apple was ahead of the curve:)

“The iMac "Core 2 Duo" 3.06 21.5-Inch Aluminum (Late 2009) features a 3.06 GHz Intel "Core 2 Duo" processor (E7600), with two independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip, a 3 MB shared level 2 cache, a 1066 MHz system bus, 4 GB of RAM (1066 MHz PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM), a 500 GB or 1 TB (7200 RPM) hard drive. .”

As a programmer it's hard for me to vote against software, but I vote for SSD drives.

The widespread ownership and power of today's home PC is the glue to nearly all of the choices commented on. As the common denominator, most of the advances mentioned are advances that increase PC power and complexity while in many cases, greatly reducing cost. I think of the difference between 1 GB SD card and 1 TB SSD hard drive as more a convenience than a technical advancement to a home studio.

The home studio environment broke the 10-50 thousand dollar barrier in 1972 when TEAC (Tascam) introduced their 2340/3340 reel to reel decks. Other manufacturers quickly followed with their own versions and models and the true home studio market was born. TEAC exploded the market in 1979 introducing the cassette based Porta-Studios. Again other manufacturers quickly followed with their own versions and models.

The home recording studio recorder quality evolved from amateur demo quality to commercial radio ready quality in 1990 when consumer digital hardware became available at a reasonable cost. If $3,499 can be considered reasonable. It was a reasonable cost to what major commercial studios used. A home studio project now had access to a physical recorder capable of matching any recorder in any major studio in the world in recording quality. Tascam DA-88's and similar Alesis digital 8 tracks were in major studios, minor studios and bedrooms.

These are milestones that changed the recording industry for both commercial and consumer recording. The common denominator between both markets was cost and track limitations.

Next came the PC based software DAW's. Software overcame both the cost and track limitation barriers. Cost is somewhat a misnomer because although the cost itself has been enormously reduced, in many studios, and all studios to some degree, that cost reduction is reduced and offset with the purchase of software programs, VST's, VSTi's that in some studios run tens of thousands of dollars cost themselves. The strangest thing I find about PC software is it's entirely based on emulating and imitating classic hardware accessories like compressors, equalizers, reverb, delays, and channel strips and also hardware recorders and preferred over hardware choices even though it comes with a difficult learning curve.

In much the same way that I think of the advances in digital storage benefits in a home or commercial studio being more of a convenience than an advancement that changes the core and path of the recording industry, I think subsequent advances and improvements in PC software to be the same, convenient. An exception could be software that manipulates audio in a manner that did not exist before its invention or is impossible to do with hardware, but I can't think of an example at the moment of such a software that has fundamentally changed how audio and music is recorded in pro studios and home studios. I think of Software in comparison to a toaster. The introduction of toasters changed how we make toast. After that initial introduction to cooking, future toasters could make four, eight or 16 pieces of toast which improved the efficiency and further reduced the cost of making toast but did not change fundamentally the process of making toast.

The problem naming the greatest music tech advance of the past decade is most, if not all the things mentioned were introduced prior to 2010. If they transformed the commercial and consumer music industry, they did so at the time of their introduction, not with subsequent improvements and advances. Edshaw's 2007 example of the introduction of RealTracks is an excellent example. RealTracks have increased in quantity and quality but they are still RealTracks that changed BIAB when they were introduced. Of course, BIAB itself was a fairly old software program by the time RealTracks and RealDrums were introduced.

PC audio software did fundamentally change how music is recorded and processed in both the commercial and consumer markets. It's advanced and improved how we record and process audio and narrowed the gap between quality and quantity of the commercial and consumer markets. The biggest barrier between commercial and consumer end product is now the investment cost of a commercial recording studio environment versus a home bedroom/garage setup. The investment commercial studios put into high quality, professional grade software programs. The operator's education, experience and expertise operating these complex software programs. The investment in hardware such as microphones and external processors. The gap, even with actual recorder of equal quality, remains huge.

To me, although initially introduced in 2004, the newest version of computer hardware to impact and technically advance home and small commercial recording abilities over the last decade is the stand alone, multi track, digital recorder.

A stand alone digital recorder immediately eliminates every tracking issue users face in every DAW recording the user makes. It completely eliminates the need for an audio interface, audio drivers, interface power source, CPU, OS requirements, Physical connections and types, available connection slots, Audio interface installation and updates, Microsoft and Mac OS updates screwing with and changing or disabling your system setup. It will work with whatever computer one currently has for audio and will also work with any and all audio computers you will have in the future. It eliminates operational obstacles like latency.

These factors and others aren't always truly appreciated by users for the immediate benefits received and removal of the above constant distractions from the recording tracking process. There are many benefits to not tracking through a consumer audio interface and doing it without losing quality in the audio. You will always find the input specs of a modern stand alone recorder and the line level outputs to be comparable to any similar cost audio interface. But you will almost always get more inputs, outputs, routing options, digital effects engines, the ability to move more than a single fader at once. They are completely zero latency devices. These devices are portable. Some can be battery operated and are smaller than a paperback novel. They come with many options and differences between brands and models making it super easy to get a unit that has features optimized for your personal recording (tracking) needs and preferences. They all have multiple means to interface and transfer files to and from a PC and DAW. You do not lose any capability of current or future software programs.

So for me, the greatest music tech advance of the past decade is the latest iteration of the stand alone, digital multi track recorder like the Tascam Model 16/24. For $700, the Model 16 provides 10 preamps equal in quality and specs to four and eight channel audio interfaces and record at A/D Resolution of 24-bit/48 kHz. Optimized for a home studio, the Tascam DP-24/32 is in most cases, an even better choice. $400 current cost is very appealing. For artists that record mostly for personal entertainment, using portable units like the Tascam DP-006. 008, 03 or the zoom R8 that all list for $300 or less would be a solid and good choice. Don't be fooled or taken back by their size and cost, properly paired with quality recording gear like condenser mics, external channel strips, external mic preamps, analog or digital mixers, these units are very capable of capturing commercial grade audio clips.

Examine today's digital multi track recorders to be used the same way the DA-88 digital recorders were connected into analog recording chains in the 1990's where the DA-88 replaced analog reel to reel recorders to fully realize the recording functionality that's often overlooked and certainly under-used in modern home recording studios.

I'm not sure how these devices gained a reputation of being sub-standard to a DAW because they're not. They're not toys. Do a side by side comparison of the 4 Track Teac 3340s of 1972 that sold for more than $1,000 to the 24 track Tascam 2488 of 2004 that sold for less than $1,000 or the $199 four track DP-004 from 2008 and both units hands down have more features and better specs that the 3340 that made home recording affordable, possible to produce commercial grade audio and sophisticated enough to reside in bedrooms and main stream studios.

In comparison to PC's for tracking, these devices are more stable, easier to use, easier to learn and operate, and though some are plastic, with normal care, these devices will last for decades and never become obsolete.

Well, 3 things come to mind:

1. Sample libraries with orchestral stuff is now generally of such a quality, that discussions about which is best these days is more about personal taste than about if it sounds naturally. Huge improvement compared with how they sounded 15 years ago.

2. That I now can play with and program synths like CS-80, Synclavier and Fairlight - synths that were completely out of my - and most other musicians - reach in the 70s and the 80s.

3. All the new possibilities in sound design we got with things like editing of wavetables, resampling and granular synthesis which got a breakthrough in the last decade with synths like Halion, Iris 2 and recently Pigments 2.

Life is good!

Will

For me, all of the above and high speed internet. Here in Hong Kong, I have 100 mb or whatever almost everywhere I go. Widespread wifi. It's also part of the glue.

Me! My technical abilities have advanced greatly in the past decade. But only due to all the cool stuff made available to me.

Charlie Fogle: Thanks for again going into that wealth of knowledge and experience and taking the time to share it. As a faithful TASCAM user, I always pay close attention to your remarks. For example, I spent a couple of days last week with an Antares Voice and Instrument Processor I hauled out of a closet, still in the same Gator case it has been in for 15 years. I used it to tech the stage of a hip coffee shop in the 80's. In this recent incarnation, it will serve to feed a processed and monitored signal into the digital recorder allowing multiple mikes and guitars as needed.
As an aside, who could forget the iPod, 2001? Originally 512 Mb, capacity soon soared. I still have a classic 256 Gb. No moving parts. Now, there is a case where the product was designed to cram MP3's into a small space and before they were through, there wasn't the same need for compressed audio as there was at the outset. Somewhere in there, there is a message for each of us.

I went from a summer of recording two track reel to reel in a 1966 Atlanta studio > a Tascam Sound on Sound reel in the 70’s > Tascam porta 4 track cassette/8 track cassette units in the 90’s > several Fostex and Tascam HD units in early 2000’s > my current Logic Pro X DAW.

I could not envision working again with the 2000’s tech. The ability to quickly comp multiple RTs (and any other tracks of course) alone is worth way, way more than many times the price of my DAW. Not to mention the hundreds of fx, sounds, etc., that reside only a click or two away.

FWIW, IMHO, grains of salt, etc.

Bud

Charlie,

As long as you're talking about strictly audio recording, I agree with you. But there is an area of music production standalone digital recorders have forgotten, MIDI.

As far as I know none of the recorders offered at this time have midi input or output capability. None can act as a master and send MIDI transport data to remotely control a midi equipped keyboard. None can accept midi data.

Why did I say forgotten? Because many digital recorders sold in the 2000's had that functionality including the Zoom MRS series, TASCAM 2488 and Boss BR series.

<<< Why did I say forgotten? Because many digital recorders sold in the 2000's had that functionality including the Zoom MRS series, TASCAM 2488 and Boss BR series. >>>

They were not forgotten but instead, evolved beyond. I think research found those features unused and other devices were developed with far better features and capability to handle midi. A feature found on some models is the inclusion of a jack to accept a foot switch to control transport functions.

That all manufacturers jointly dropped midi is evidence it was obsolete to how the recorders were ultimately used by the greater majority of users. Every digital recorder, even the cheapest models, have stereo or 2 mono input that accepts line level audio output from keyboards, drum machines, effects machines and computers where midi manipulation is better suited.

EDIT: Here's a claim I can speculate about a digital stand alone recorder that separates it from every other music tech advance post 1970: Put a modern Tascam DP-24 in the hands of George Martin and the Beatles or Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys/wrecking crew in 1967 and give them only two hours to learn the physical operation and controls, and in the third hour that followed, the DP-24 would be connected and the artists would be making music beyond anything they could create with the existing technology of that day. Stand alone recorders are the only technology and medium that bridges the technology across the entire span of musical multi track recording from the late 50's - early 60's to today. Because it is completely a self-contained operating system that's not dependent on any other exterior connections than the physical audio connections, the OS technology would have worked just fine in 1967. From an operational standpoint, the terminology, physical connections, dials, buttons and faders would be familiar to the engineers, producers and artists back then. The physical audio connections were compatible. What I'm saying is if it were possible, a Tascam (or similar) digital stand alone recorder could directly replace the Ampeg 4 track 2" reel to Reel recorder in Abby Road Studios with a 24 track digital recorder in 1967 and every internal and external connection with he exception of USB and other operations specific to computer communication would work. From a tracking perspective, any lower end 4 track models with compatible connections could replace the tape machine.

Both keyboards and synthesizers technologies existed in this time period and were integrated and utilized in major studio recording by major artists like the Beatles and Beach Boys. Digital recorders did not exist so I suggest and think digital recorders, rather than DAW's, keyboards and synthesizers, are the greatest advance spanning the entire musical multi track existence. It is the single medium that would integrate and work in the same manner today.

Not specifically made "for" music, Thunderbolt 3 ports. This connector (protocol) for externally connected devices (PC or Mac) for at lest the next 10 years or so. Future of Audio Interface connection. Most likely at some point, they will come out with TB4, 5, 6... but I am certain connector and super fast transfer speeds + power through a single cable, will stay with us for some time.

Also +1 for SSD's.

The first MIDI application I laid hands on was a Roland Keyboard (Pardon me, switching station) connected to a Korg Grand Piano module. Hasn't really been that long ago. All the sound was in the module. The keys were triggers. Now, that little rig could sound convincingly like a Steinway, a B-3, or any of 23 other selected keyboards. So, they knew at that time a system based on yes/no commands to a database would work. That legacy lives on in what we know as non-destructive editing.
I plead ignorance as to really understanding what goes on here. Matt Finley could no doubt shed light on the principles of MIDI.

Thanks, Ed, but there are far better here than I am. Yes, I've programmed MIDI for three decades, but the keyboard players are generally more knowledgeable. MIDI actually doesn't represent the instruments I play very well (trumpet, flute, sax) but it's acceptable on vibes.

Thanks, Matt. I thought that might be something you would have experience with. As it is, my understanding is that applications of MIDI to music composition and playing will be with us for years to come, in spite of the advances in sampling.

Yes still bright future for MIDI. Even wind instruments can be effectively reproduced via MIDI when playing with vsts such as those produced by Sample Modeling (www.samplemodeling.com) or Audio Modeling (www.audiomodeling.com). These vsts are best played via a wind controller if possible but with this a keyboard player can effectively play authentic sax or trombone/trumpet. There are so many amazing vst instruments nowadays from orchestral to rock and pop and they are still powered by MIDI.

I do have a wind controller, a Yamaha WX5. Bob 'Notes' Norton has one, and MarioD has that or similar.

The wind controllers do output MIDI and it can be very useful. I've used mine connected to a string section patch in BIAB to great effect.

I also played a gig one time where a family member had the lead role but the contractor was too cheap to hire enough musicians, so I covered the lead trumpet, flute, and acoustic bass book at the same time. I played acoustic bass on my wind controller. After all, it can be any patch (sound) you want.

There is a new standard being designed for MIDI. It is indeed far from dead.

The only thing that is missing is someone writing an electronics workbench course featuring Reaktor. Today we have everything including virtual tape recording software, sequencers, vst' dxi's amplifier simulations. What hasn't been emulated? My only complaint is that the copyright laws regarding the world of University books is terrible. It is keeping so many modern conversations away from most people. No body is reading reason, logic, philosophical, psychology, new varieties of math and creative models and modes of science. Except for that it seems pretty close to Heaven.

One logical question to ask is, "How is database management in the Ai environment different from that in the conventional system?" That is a question PC Magazine had one of its senior editors 'splain.
https://www.pcmag.com/article/356818/ai-databases-what-they-are-and-why-your-business-should-car
The article is way more detailed than most of us really need, but it does indeed stimulate the imagination of what lies ahead, and not so far off.

Re: Wind Controllers
Although I have never used one (nor do I profess to know how), I've always been particularly impressed with these instruments.

Straight MIDI with Brass and Woodwind is generally pretty ordinary. It's the nuances that the artist provides via the controller that adds the realism.