I hope that you've had a chance to read the first part of this posting. I felt that I had a lot to say, and that it was more than could be reasonably fit into one post. That's a lot to ask. Please read on...
After a series of long conversations, some heated, some a bit threatening, I carried my opinions about the new healthcare bill into the back of my brain in an attempt to understand what all the fuss is about. On a deeper level. To organize my thoughts, I actually drew out charts, made notes, and got generally pretty geeky about all of this. I feel like this has been time well spent.
One big question that I still have is whether or not we should be so concerned about the effect that this law will have on business, and small business in particular. The so called "engine of the economy." If healthcare reform will hurt these entities (while they are down, as it were) then I would agree that this bill has been introduced at an inopportune time. However, this far-reaching change would not have been possible in an era of Republican domination of both houses of congress and the office of the president, such as we have had in recent years. So, I say bravo to the current administration for going for it, even if the timing could have been better. I for one, have seen enough kowtowing to the interests of big business, and their disregard for the general public, to last a lifetime.
I have heard the expression that folks were "using their homes like cash machines" over and over to describe the finance bubble that played a large part in our current economic quagmire. What I feel that most of us have ignored or disregarded is how corporations have continually used the American market and the environment in a similar fashion.
We are, to be sure, an easily manipulated population. Make products, market them effectively, and we will surely buy them. But the question has to be asked in this age of dwindling natural resources (and heightened competition for them) if we have made the right choice for the long term. Currently, I see two systems that are intrinsically linked. Our businesses, in order to move ahead and be profitable, are directly connected to consumerism on an ever increasing scale. Consumerism drives business, and business needs resources, whether in the form of man-power, or raw materials for production. So, as it pertains to a nationwide Healthcare system, should the argument really be about whether or not we will harm American business with the passage of this bill? Continued, rampant business expansion, will use more man power, more resources and more energy. A false prosperity will continue to exist, allowing for even higher global birth-rates, and ever more consumers. I feel I am being carried to the edge of the cliff by a mad wave of lemmings.
The blame for our recent economic woes has got to be focused on our own short-sightedness. The arguments against healthcare are the perfect example. This is by no means an argument against healthcare, but wouldn't you think businesses would see the benefit in covering their employees, so they could afford to go on to have covered children, who would grow into healthy adult consumers? I guess that kind of thinking goes against today's bottom line.
The point is, I'd really like to think that at some time in the near future, we would be willing to put the pieces in place in government to "downshift" our economy to a new model that doesn't require endless consumption for stability. I'd like to think that everyone would be able to do more with less, while waxing nostalgic about "the good ol' days" of $3 coffee drinks available inside your local Wal-Mart.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Healthcare Opus, part One
The new Time magazine came yesterday. Two articles stood out against the typical fare of how China is catching up to us and the book and movie reviews. The first was a guide to the changes in healthcare that we can expect to see rolling out in the coming months and years. The second, what I considered to be an alert about Andrew Breitbart and his series of conservative "Big" sites. I would be surprised if the juxtaposition of these articles was an accident.
For me, the guide to healthcare was an anxiously awaited full explanation of what has actually been debated so hotly in congress and has been such a bone of contention between Democrats and Republicans. It has been debate that, quite honestly, lost me a few turns back. I am glad there are those of you out there that held on for the ride in it's entirety. Be happy that you won't have to explain this new system to me now.
One thing I knew before all of this started. A national healthcare plan would be expensive. Not necessarily for government, not necessarily for insurance companies, but mainly for you and me. I view this cost as an acceptable part of being insured. I never expect insurance to be free. It's expensive no matter where it comes from, but much less so if it comes from a cooperative, which effectively is what we're talking about here. A giant, government-regulated cooperative. In a country that values it's freedom as much as we do, this definitely means trouble. Or does it?
Seems that as always, this depends on your perspective. The conservative argument has been that your insurance options under institutionalized healthcare would be limited, and ultimately more expensive. That the bill is a small business killer, due to the coverage that they would have to provide their employees. Overall, the tone has been that it's a plan that government is forcing down the throats of all Americans that is akin to the socialism of European nations. Okay, I can see how that might run contrary to the ideals of the founding fathers. However, we're a long way from the 18th century. A lot has changed with the addition of say, several hundred million people.
My experience with insurance companies has always been an exercise in compromise. It seems you always have to be willing to pay too much for not exactly the coverage that you need. If the government's new plan delivers as expected, not much would change. I would still face limitations and some expense, in the form of higher taxes and Medicare payroll deductions. But this time, at the least, I could not be denied coverage, and when it came time to take advantage of Medicare I wouldn't see gaps in the prescription drug benefit.
As the bill pertains to small businesses, my attitude is that it's about time that all employers provide some form of healthcare. Nothing says "my employees are disposable" more than not insuring them. It will be tough for some businesses to survive under the new law, but it should be recognized that the ones that fail probably weren't so healthy to begin with. I am willing to take some heat for saying this, but our companies should not be immune to the same laws that govern nature. Struggling enterprises should be allowed to fail. Be creative, layoff under-performers, suck it up. I thought clawing your way to the top was the American way.
Socialism? I think we all need to get a better handle on the structure of our government as-is. We live in a Socialist Republic already. We may not call it that, but that's exactly what it is. I would go so far as to call it a Corporate Socialist Republic. For most of you who have been willing to read this far this may seem obvious, but for the remaining few that don't believe, let me remind you of the huge corporate bailouts that happened not so long ago. Chrysler? General Motors? Lest we forget the banking industry? It should not seem so important that we are becoming anything like our European cousins.
Try this on for size:
Allow me to address a few points in the above article, before I stray too far from this topic. A little perspective about these numbers the author so casually tosses around. AT&T will take a one-billion dollar "hit" in the current quarter as a result of having to pay additional healthcare coverage? This is a small percentage of AT&T's quarterly revenue, which by the way, was up 25% to 30.87 billion dollars as a result of expanded cellular clientele. Not to mention, this cost could certainly be financed over a longer period than three months. John Deere? Their claimed 100 million loss would hardly make a dent in their revenues. This company earned 23.1 billion in 2009. There is a small truth in part of what the author says here. These costs, to some degree would be passed on to the worker. We should be sure to hold the companies accountable for their decisions on this front. It is not the fault of the healthcare bill if Mega-Conglomerate X decides to forward the additional expense to it's factory floor. Once again, the rhetoric favors big business, because "business is people" and that means jobs. But at what cost? When do we start saying to ourselves, business and corporations in particular are not serving those who serve them? What benefit is there in protecting them to the current degree that we do?
I think I speak for most moderate liberals and certainly anyone on the left of me by saying that I resent being labeled a supporter of the "degenerates" that will be sucking the lifeblood out of the rest of America's hard-working, fiscally responsible population. This is a prime example of how sensational media practices play upon the fears of conservatives. I wonder why anyone would think that I, as a liberal, would want to support freeloaders, suckling from the teat of federal and state tax revenues, any more than a conservative would. The cold, hard fact is that these folks who are not "playing by the rules" are already causing your insurance premiums to escalate, and causing insurance companies to clamp down ever-harder on payouts to honest types like ourselves. As I see it, you're going to pay whether it's as an individual, or out of a tax pool. The only difference being that the tax pool is regulated a hell of a lot more than your insurance provider, who can drop your benefit any time they like. So really, what's there to complain about? If you like your plan, and want to keep it, keep it, and shut up.
For me, the guide to healthcare was an anxiously awaited full explanation of what has actually been debated so hotly in congress and has been such a bone of contention between Democrats and Republicans. It has been debate that, quite honestly, lost me a few turns back. I am glad there are those of you out there that held on for the ride in it's entirety. Be happy that you won't have to explain this new system to me now.
One thing I knew before all of this started. A national healthcare plan would be expensive. Not necessarily for government, not necessarily for insurance companies, but mainly for you and me. I view this cost as an acceptable part of being insured. I never expect insurance to be free. It's expensive no matter where it comes from, but much less so if it comes from a cooperative, which effectively is what we're talking about here. A giant, government-regulated cooperative. In a country that values it's freedom as much as we do, this definitely means trouble. Or does it?
Seems that as always, this depends on your perspective. The conservative argument has been that your insurance options under institutionalized healthcare would be limited, and ultimately more expensive. That the bill is a small business killer, due to the coverage that they would have to provide their employees. Overall, the tone has been that it's a plan that government is forcing down the throats of all Americans that is akin to the socialism of European nations. Okay, I can see how that might run contrary to the ideals of the founding fathers. However, we're a long way from the 18th century. A lot has changed with the addition of say, several hundred million people.
My experience with insurance companies has always been an exercise in compromise. It seems you always have to be willing to pay too much for not exactly the coverage that you need. If the government's new plan delivers as expected, not much would change. I would still face limitations and some expense, in the form of higher taxes and Medicare payroll deductions. But this time, at the least, I could not be denied coverage, and when it came time to take advantage of Medicare I wouldn't see gaps in the prescription drug benefit.
As the bill pertains to small businesses, my attitude is that it's about time that all employers provide some form of healthcare. Nothing says "my employees are disposable" more than not insuring them. It will be tough for some businesses to survive under the new law, but it should be recognized that the ones that fail probably weren't so healthy to begin with. I am willing to take some heat for saying this, but our companies should not be immune to the same laws that govern nature. Struggling enterprises should be allowed to fail. Be creative, layoff under-performers, suck it up. I thought clawing your way to the top was the American way.
Socialism? I think we all need to get a better handle on the structure of our government as-is. We live in a Socialist Republic already. We may not call it that, but that's exactly what it is. I would go so far as to call it a Corporate Socialist Republic. For most of you who have been willing to read this far this may seem obvious, but for the remaining few that don't believe, let me remind you of the huge corporate bailouts that happened not so long ago. Chrysler? General Motors? Lest we forget the banking industry? It should not seem so important that we are becoming anything like our European cousins.
Try this on for size:
"American business, the motor of the global economy, was dealt a deathblow by the Marxist putsch that the Democrat Party delivered in the form of the healthcare bill. Why wasn’t this made public before the vote? The numbers are staggering. It was revealed Friday that AT&T, the largest telephone company in the country, will take a one-billion-dollar hit in the current quarter as a result of this economic attack on America. The farm-equipment company Deere is looking at $150 million in new healthcare-related charges this quarter, and Caterpillar is facing $100 million.Scary right? This article contains exactly the form of rhetoric that is, in my opinion going to be the death knell for the Republican party in the coming years. Although this article comes from the far right extreme in political thinking, I have heard these sentiments uttered in more reserved circles. Truth be told, these outrageous "chicken little" proclamations are receiving their share of flak not only from leftists. What lies just below the surface of arguments like these is a deep well of fear-based ideology. I have a hard time understanding just how a completely static, unchanging government, with no new ideas could be a good thing for any nation. Change, and I use that word knowing the stigma attached to it at this point, is necessary in any and all healthy systems. Change invigorates. Change renews. Having said this, I also believe in a healthy dose of balancing conservatism, so that we are not, as a nation constantly firing from the hip.
Who do you think will pay for this? We will pay. According to Reuters, “Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees that tax burdens under the new law would likely filter down to employees.” Business is not something in the abstract, or the evil force the leftists and the communists deceptively smear it to be — business is work, business is people, it is jobs, it is production. When business pays, we pay. Jobs pay. Consumers pay.
And we will pay for more than that as well. Have you seen the commercials yet for people who have maxed out their credit cards, and have loans over ten thousand that they can’t pay back, urging them to apply for stimulus dollars? Are you one of those who played by the rules, worked hard, did the right thing? If so, you’re screwed. The man has you and your wallet and your kids’ wallet by the throat. Welcome to the era of the degenerate: they will be sucking your blood and your children’s blood and your children’s children’s blood for decades to come, or however long America lasts."
-by Pamela Geller, published on the site "Big Government," run by conservative pundit Andrew Breitbart
Allow me to address a few points in the above article, before I stray too far from this topic. A little perspective about these numbers the author so casually tosses around. AT&T will take a one-billion dollar "hit" in the current quarter as a result of having to pay additional healthcare coverage? This is a small percentage of AT&T's quarterly revenue, which by the way, was up 25% to 30.87 billion dollars as a result of expanded cellular clientele. Not to mention, this cost could certainly be financed over a longer period than three months. John Deere? Their claimed 100 million loss would hardly make a dent in their revenues. This company earned 23.1 billion in 2009. There is a small truth in part of what the author says here. These costs, to some degree would be passed on to the worker. We should be sure to hold the companies accountable for their decisions on this front. It is not the fault of the healthcare bill if Mega-Conglomerate X decides to forward the additional expense to it's factory floor. Once again, the rhetoric favors big business, because "business is people" and that means jobs. But at what cost? When do we start saying to ourselves, business and corporations in particular are not serving those who serve them? What benefit is there in protecting them to the current degree that we do?
I think I speak for most moderate liberals and certainly anyone on the left of me by saying that I resent being labeled a supporter of the "degenerates" that will be sucking the lifeblood out of the rest of America's hard-working, fiscally responsible population. This is a prime example of how sensational media practices play upon the fears of conservatives. I wonder why anyone would think that I, as a liberal, would want to support freeloaders, suckling from the teat of federal and state tax revenues, any more than a conservative would. The cold, hard fact is that these folks who are not "playing by the rules" are already causing your insurance premiums to escalate, and causing insurance companies to clamp down ever-harder on payouts to honest types like ourselves. As I see it, you're going to pay whether it's as an individual, or out of a tax pool. The only difference being that the tax pool is regulated a hell of a lot more than your insurance provider, who can drop your benefit any time they like. So really, what's there to complain about? If you like your plan, and want to keep it, keep it, and shut up.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Troublesome Bass
I have been producing my own music long enough now to dread creating my own bass tracks. Ironically, I love the sound of bass instruments. The low end is really the "glue" that ties a song together. I just never seem to be satisfied with my own performance when I record myself, the sound I create, or the way that sound finds it's way into the mix. I am realizing now, after years of making the same mistakes, that the bass frequencies are the toughest part of the audible spectrum to get right.
Perhaps my problem is two-fold: first, bass frequencies require more power to be reproduced accurately through speakers, and second, I have always used small monitors to mix with (the largest I have ever used have only a 5" driver). I am providing them enough power, at 100w per stereo channel, but I typically listen at very low levels in an effort to hear more high end detail. Bi-amped monitors would help this tremendously. They have a separate power stage for both the tweeter and the driver, thereby eliminating any overdriving of the high frequencies as you crank the volume looking for more bass (or cowbell!). I don't have the money for these at the moment. Although there are cheaper models out there, average cost for a high quality pair is around $2000, and I don't own skis yet.
At more reasonable prices that I can justify, there are monitors with 6 and 8" drivers which would reproduce the sound of bass instruments quite a bit better. When it came time to focus on the bass tracks, I could bring the levels up a little. I would imagine that plan might not sit well with the neighbors, for the same reason that elephants use low frequency voicings to communicate over long distances: bass travels. I am certain that the complaints would be centered less around the sound, but the repetition of that sound many, many times!
Another interesting and sometimes difficult aspect of mixing bass tones is their surprising complexity. While the majority of the power (amplitude) of most bass tracks is contained in a similar low frequency set, the overall timbre of the sound is often dependent on high frequency "flavoring" that adds character to the sound. Very often I read the advice of professional engineers who stress the importance of carving out a sonic space (usually with EQ) for each track within a mix to ensure that it will sit well with all of the others in the song. Naturally my first inclination, as is the first inclination of everyone who reads this advice, was to place the bass exactly where we all think it should go. Down low. Equalize out everything above 500Hz, and hope for the best. This technique led to a lot of frustration for me, as the result was dull, lifeless thumping beneath the rest of the mix that felt somehow disconnected from the music.
It was not until I saw a visual representation of the frequency spectrum created by a bass guitar that I realized how much audio information exists above 500Hz. This opened up an entirely different way of thinking about bass in general. I found myself applying significant boost to the mid-range of almost all bass instruments just to hear what they had to offer. I compressed only the high frequencies to give punch and clarity in my mixes. It sounded good. The bass, it seemed, had something to say at last.
This kind experimentation is key for the budding engineer. Advice can only carry you so far. In this case it could be argued that it was dead wrong. I am not suggesting that we collectively "throw out the manual" created by those that have come before us, only that maybe we should place more emphasis on creativity. I am realizing that professional studio producers guard their signature techniques fiercely, and for good reason. It's their livelyhood at stake. Unfortunately, this leaves the rest of us with little to run on.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
What I Really Sent to Rolling Stone
"published" in the March 4, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone:
Wow. I have always had a deep appreciation for John Mayer's music, but I feel somewhat disappointed by the way in which he is handling his fame. Your recent article mentioned several other "guitar greats" of the level that I think John would aspire to, and who certainly hand a hand in shaping his sound. Of these artists, I could not tell you who Eric Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Buddy Guy, or Jimi Hendrix ever shared a bed with. It's a sad fact that Mayer's sexual conquests have become such a large part of his resume.
Zach Wilson
Glenwood Springs, CO
Needless to say, I am a little upset that RS decided to edit this. Call it sour grapes, what have you. I was all kinds of stoked to see my opinion in print. I wanted to at least hang the clip on my fridge, but damn if I'm embarrassed to even have this simple pleasure.
Wow. I have always had a deep appreciation for John Mayer's music, but I feel somewhat disappointed by the way in which he is handling his fame. Your recent article mentioned several other "guitar greats" of the level that I think John would aspire to, and who certainly hand a hand in shaping his sound. Of these artists, I could not tell you who Eric Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Buddy Guy, or Jimi Hendrix ever shared a bed with. It's a sad fact that Mayer's sexual conquests have become such a large part of his resume.
Zach Wilson
Glenwood Springs, CO
Needless to say, I am a little upset that RS decided to edit this. Call it sour grapes, what have you. I was all kinds of stoked to see my opinion in print. I wanted to at least hang the clip on my fridge, but damn if I'm embarrassed to even have this simple pleasure.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
General Thoughts on Solar Water Heating
Had a recent conversation with a co-worker that reawakened some feelings I have harbored about the use (and very often, misuse) of solar collectors for water heating. We spoke about the thermal system installed at her home, which was designed to offer supplemental heat for a radiant floor loop. This in-floor heating system is primarily operated with a gas boiler, which has been working overtime-her monthly propane bill in the winter is $500+. This wouldn't seem so shocking under normal circumstances. This is Colorado. The house is in a deep and sheltered valley, at high altitude. It's damn cold.
Here's the problem: the house was constructed of strawbales, and it's a one bedroom. So you've got a seriously well insulated structure, that's really small. This place should, on paper, stay fairly warm on it's own. The amount of energy required to heat it should be minimal. Did I mention she has had to run the domestic water a bit to flush the glycol (anti-freeze) out of the pipes before she takes a shower? Obviously there are big problems with this system, apart from the fact that it's not doing what it was originally designed to do.
This brings me to my point. After all of the experimentation that has occurred in this arena starting, lets say, in the early seventies, you'd think that we'd have dialed this technology in to the Nth degree by now. I asked if she knew when the building was constructed. Apparently, it's only a few years old. This startlingly bad system was recently commissioned. I think the truth is, we have dialed this stuff in pretty well. So what's the issue?
A little about my experience in this field. I had the pleasure (or horror!) of installing domestic solar hot water systems for four years or so. I also did a few tie-ins to radiant floor systems as well. This by no means makes me an expert, but I feel like I have had enough of an opportunity to see what works well, what the trouble spots are, and how the technology can be put to good use. The majority of the systems I worked on were more or less packaged deals, sort of "standardized" to work for the most homes. However, the company I worked for previously would entertain almost any customer and their wild fantasies as to what could be done with the power of the sun. This being said, I did see some systems, that probably would have made more heat if they'd been set on fire, and should have been.
My opinion on why there are so many failed or failing thermal systems is based on several factors:
I am psyched that my first solar gig allowed me to see both the functional and the non-functioning, the useful and the useless in solar hot water. Though I appreciate the technology and desire my own system, I am now equally psyched not to be installing solar thermal at all.
Thanks for reading.
Here's the problem: the house was constructed of strawbales, and it's a one bedroom. So you've got a seriously well insulated structure, that's really small. This place should, on paper, stay fairly warm on it's own. The amount of energy required to heat it should be minimal. Did I mention she has had to run the domestic water a bit to flush the glycol (anti-freeze) out of the pipes before she takes a shower? Obviously there are big problems with this system, apart from the fact that it's not doing what it was originally designed to do.
This brings me to my point. After all of the experimentation that has occurred in this arena starting, lets say, in the early seventies, you'd think that we'd have dialed this technology in to the Nth degree by now. I asked if she knew when the building was constructed. Apparently, it's only a few years old. This startlingly bad system was recently commissioned. I think the truth is, we have dialed this stuff in pretty well. So what's the issue?
A little about my experience in this field. I had the pleasure (or horror!) of installing domestic solar hot water systems for four years or so. I also did a few tie-ins to radiant floor systems as well. This by no means makes me an expert, but I feel like I have had enough of an opportunity to see what works well, what the trouble spots are, and how the technology can be put to good use. The majority of the systems I worked on were more or less packaged deals, sort of "standardized" to work for the most homes. However, the company I worked for previously would entertain almost any customer and their wild fantasies as to what could be done with the power of the sun. This being said, I did see some systems, that probably would have made more heat if they'd been set on fire, and should have been.
My opinion on why there are so many failed or failing thermal systems is based on several factors:
- We ask too much of the equipment. There are practical limits to the amount of heat that can be produced by a single flat-plate solar collector, not to mention harvested by the system. You may be able to provide enough heat for hot water in your house, but it is highly doubtful that you will heat your entire home with only one panel. I understand. These collectors cost thousands of dollars, and if four would do the trick nicely, why not get two and be happy with half of the bill taken care of by mother nature, right? Wrong.
- There are all kinds of vagaries that affect the way these systems perform. Flow, pressure, thermosiphoning, etc. Most of us do not possess the skills to determine exactly what area of collector square footage will be required for a given goal, versus storage tank size, factoring in pump size and energy consumption... You'd need a team of NASA scientists to know exactly every detail that could have an effect on ultimate production. The best we can hope for in most cases is to under-produce (supplement) rather than over-produce (spend too much money and potentially create to much heat; read: steam, system failure).
- Human beings. We make mistakes. Thermal systems offer amazing potential to make more of them. In my short (thank God) career of putting these things in, I cannot tell you how often my soldered joints failed. It seems like that's just the way plumbing goes sometimes. Bad fittings, valves, pin-hole leaks, all happen with regularity, and sometimes it's just installer error. Aside from what we can do wrong in the building process, there's our seemingly insatiable lust for bigger and more complicated systems of all types. This must have something to do with the need for a feeling of more power and control in our lives. The fact that you could potentially outsmart nature with a strong dose of electronics and engineering. I dunno. I know that I have witnessed systems grow with the logic of, "well if this works, wouldn't this work if we installed another valve here, and another pump here to do this?"
I am psyched that my first solar gig allowed me to see both the functional and the non-functioning, the useful and the useless in solar hot water. Though I appreciate the technology and desire my own system, I am now equally psyched not to be installing solar thermal at all.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Orient Blue Mako
I did finally make a watch purchase after the holidays this year. I wasn't able to get the Seiko Alpinist that I have so coveted in the past few months. The nearly $500 pricetag was just a little too much to swallow in this economy. I am very happy with the Orient that I settled on, after many nights of internet research. I have admired the brand for a while, as it has been a staple in the asian market forever, and is just now making in-roads in the west. Some of their models, frankly, don't do it for me, but the divers I find to be quite classic. With the coming of the new year, prices on-line plummeted and I couldn't help myself... Trigger pulled.
Being that this is what I would consider my first real watch as an adult (it doesn't have C3-PO or R2D2, or any of the cast of Sesame Street on the dial, and it isn't a Swatch) I was pretty excited when it showed up on my doorstep. I won't go on and on about the packaging, but the box is a nice touch, and it makes you feel like you've got a much more expensive piece in your hands. The heft of the thing is great. You get a very strong sense of solidity and strength. So far, I would say that you can't beat the Mako for value. Water resistant to 200 meters (660ft.), day/date, rotating bezel, and automatic movement, all for just over a hundred bucks. The stainless steel bracelet was the deciding factor for me, as I have always had trouble with the fit of traditional watchbands. Having the ability to custom fit the bracelet was key, not to mention the look is without a doubt, burly.
I do have my one gripe, which apparently I share with every other Mako owner. The end-links that attach the bracelet to the watch case are hollow, rather than solid, as you will find on more expensive models. Pardon me, but this is truly the "weak link" of the entire watch. I have heard that due to rather thin spring bars and this hollow structure, this will be the watch's downfall if there is to be one. I am not complaining. For the price, I still think this thing is a steal.
So there you have it, if you're interested. Maybe this mini-review will help if you to are about to jump into the world of the watch fetish. There are certainly more pressing issues in life, but this is just a little corner of mine.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
My Amazement and Appreciation For Technology
Please take this post as an article completely independent of all others that you will find here. I would not want to be labeled a hypocrite for my contradictory love of all things electronic, and incessant pleading for mass lifestyle change to the small and simple. I still and will always believe that simple living saves lives, with the exclusion of really complicated music studios and fancy microphones.
I was thinking about signal flow the other night. If you are producing a record for mass distribution, you are always aware of the specter of background noise and ways to reduce it. With the advent of "in the box" recording, where a computer and analog-to-digital converter is all you really need to track, edit, mix and master songs, this is really easy to take for granted. I have never had to deal with serious routing of a signal chain from mixer to outboard effects, back to the mixer, to a recording device (maybe a tape machine) and back again. Worried, that at each patch to an input or output jack I am creating a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio that will have to be dealt with sooner or later. This change in the way that recordings happen is truly a revolution in music on par with the advent of the CD, the single largest jump in audio technology to be available to the masses.
Let me explain in further detail. Because it is possible to record directly to a software recording program (usually called a DAW, or desktop audio workstation) the only objectionable noise that might be captured could be sounds outside of the studio space: like car horns, dogs barking, sirens from the nearby hospital, low flying aircraft, etc. You get the point. In my little makeshift studio, the worst offender is my computer's fan, which runs almost constantly. The sound of the fan running is usually not intelligible in the final product, meaning, listeners don't usually say to me "hey, is that a computer fan running in the background there?" It sounds more like white noise. And it drives me absolutely nuts. I have tried to cover the tower with heavy blankets. I have looked into the investment of longer cords and cables, so that I could "remotely" operate the computer, which I could place in the closet. I have tried to "EQ out" the low hiss. I think I have resigned myself to the fact that I am not producing U2's new album, so maybe I should just shut up and deal.
If you are really clever, can figure out the programming and have a lot of money to spend on digital libraries of sampled instruments, it is possible to avoid microphones all together and compose entirely in the digital domain. No noise concerns there! I've done a little of this and I have to say, it's pretty amazing. You can integrate the sound of a snare drum recorded in absolute silence in some fancy studio somewhere into your tracks and enjoy pristine stillness at any frequency outside of the drum itself. As Borat would say, "Niice."
So back to analog recording. I am going to hereby give mad props to anyone who produced music before the advent of digital technology. These folks waged the constant battle to keep a high signal to noise ratio intact, while routing their music through all manner of outboard gear. In fact, if you weren't using a really expensive mixing console, you probably did all of your EQing, compressing, limiting, gating, what-have-you on numerous external devices. Each, with it's own signal-to-noise characteristics.
This brings me to the most interesting aspect in all of this technological gibberish, musical claptrap, recording hocus-pocus. Now that we have eliminated the ghost in the machine: noise, we're well on our collective way to letting it back into our music. To some degree. There has been a huge resurgence in the use of "antique" recording equipment. Everything from microphone pre-amps to dynamics processors, these vintage monsters from the stone-age of sound run on vacuum tube power, giving them unique tonal character that you just can't get nowadays. Even with the finest software impersonations of these studio bits (that's a whole other post waiting to happen) you just can't achieve the dynamic range of tubes. Turns out our ears really dig the oh-so squishy, flexible sound of all kinds of things, not just guitars, pushed through vacuum tubes. Voices warm up, synthesizers seem to have more depth, horns seem less brash...
I find this so bizarre. In the late sixties and early seventies, electrical engineers were doing all they could to eliminate tubes from anything that utilized them. Apart from being wickedly hot and fragile, they're generally onerous to replace, and quite simply: they fail. So musical amplifiers of all types switched to transistors, for all kinds of reasons. Cheaper. Smaller. Used less power. Safer. Very rugged. Studios all of the sudden, could be smaller, and quite a bit cooler. I guess this is a case in which convenience has not won out, because here we are, January 2010, and you can leaf through any Musician's Friend or Sweetwater catalog and see page after page of tube devices, waiting to fill your rack-spaces. Many of these are faithful reissues of classic studio gear from decades ago.
To be fair, we have come a long way. Chances are you would not link these boxes together in series, like batteries in a flashlight, pumping up the noise floor at every step. The computer is going to sit right in the middle and be your virtual hub for these elements, so that any excess noise is limited by the device itself and the few number of connections: 2 (1 in and 1 out). The fact that you are recording to a hard drive in your computer is a huge space savings over an analog tape machine and all of the hardware associated with it. Everything is getting tinier. My mixer, which I consider a luxury because I made perfectly decent recordings before I owned it, is about the size of a small notebook. 12"L x 10"W x 3"H. Amazing when you consider it houses four microphone pre-amps, an audio interface, on-board effects, and eight traditional channel strips.
Where is this industry headed? I can't really envision the future of pro audio and recording technology. For the moment the advances seem to be focused on improving the bit-count on all software programs and plug-ins, which to me seems rather esoteric. If I can't eliminate the sound of my computer fan from my live tracks, then why would I spend good money to eek out a bit more headroom and dynamics by recording in 24 bits/192kHz? Effectively, you would be able to hear the fan muck a lot better.
From my chair, I will continue to marvel at the advances as they roll by, only buying the few bits and pieces I feel are necessary to produce at my level. I am constantly aware that what I possess in my simple studio now holds more power and tools than Eddie Kramer had at his disposal when he recorded Jimi Hendrix, or the late Willie Mitchell when tracking Al Green.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)