Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:04 am
Why does there need to be an argument over "this versus that"? You use different tools for different parts of the job. If you feel obliged to use one solution to the mutual exclusion of the other...well, in either case, you're still presented by an embarrassment of riches.
Is the effects structure of a hardware synthesizer as flexible as a modern DAW? Perhaps not. But, it still beats the living daylights out of anything that was available to the engineers and artists who've made some of the most seminal recordings of our collective musical culture. And, in the right hands, a Korg sequencer is capable of producing some very pleasing results for a final mix...all with the stability and reliability of a purely hardware solution.
On the other hand, the "in the box" method offers complete scalability - from a home/project studio to world-class recording facility. But, it's only as good as its weakest link. As mentioned above, A/D conversion, mics, mic preamps, in-line hardware processing and/or software plug-ins - all play a vital role in determining the quality of the final product. Not to mention the talent of the artist, the producer and the engineer(s).
Just by way of illustration, this is a track that I sequenced in the "lowly" M50 - complete with its compressed samples and maximum 80 voice polyphony. The backing track was mixed completely in the keyboard. The track was then transferred to the computer for the purpose of adding the vocal. Just a bit of EQ on the stereo backing and a dash of iZotope Ozone on the master track.
By the way, this is not an original song, nor do I claim that this is a commercial-quality mix. (It's purely a "home recording")
But, as a demo, I'm sufficiently pleased with the result. The song is from 1966 and was a hit for The Left Banke:
"Pretty Ballerina"
Different tools for different parts of the job. They aren't mutually exclusive. For live performance, I use a mono version of this track minus the piano part which is played live. The mix is hard-panned to the left, the right channel reserved for the click track. Keyboard and computer live happily together.
Is the effects structure of a hardware synthesizer as flexible as a modern DAW? Perhaps not. But, it still beats the living daylights out of anything that was available to the engineers and artists who've made some of the most seminal recordings of our collective musical culture. And, in the right hands, a Korg sequencer is capable of producing some very pleasing results for a final mix...all with the stability and reliability of a purely hardware solution.
On the other hand, the "in the box" method offers complete scalability - from a home/project studio to world-class recording facility. But, it's only as good as its weakest link. As mentioned above, A/D conversion, mics, mic preamps, in-line hardware processing and/or software plug-ins - all play a vital role in determining the quality of the final product. Not to mention the talent of the artist, the producer and the engineer(s).
Just by way of illustration, this is a track that I sequenced in the "lowly" M50 - complete with its compressed samples and maximum 80 voice polyphony. The backing track was mixed completely in the keyboard. The track was then transferred to the computer for the purpose of adding the vocal. Just a bit of EQ on the stereo backing and a dash of iZotope Ozone on the master track.
By the way, this is not an original song, nor do I claim that this is a commercial-quality mix. (It's purely a "home recording")
But, as a demo, I'm sufficiently pleased with the result. The song is from 1966 and was a hit for The Left Banke:
"Pretty Ballerina"
Different tools for different parts of the job. They aren't mutually exclusive. For live performance, I use a mono version of this track minus the piano part which is played live. The mix is hard-panned to the left, the right channel reserved for the click track. Keyboard and computer live happily together.
