Recording Software Terminology

[Trevor B.]

Does anyone else find that the language of digital recording is often esoteric and confusing. For example, here's the official definition of Quantize which I've copied from the google search, "Define Quantize".

"quan·tize
ˈkwänˌtīz/Submit
verb
1.
PHYSICS
apply quantum theory to, especially form into quanta, in particular restrict the number of possible values of (a quantity) or states of (a system) so that certain variables can assume only certain discrete magnitudes.
2.
ELECTRONICS
approximate (a continuously varying signal) by one whose amplitude is restricted to a prescribed set of values."

While these definitions seem to suggest digital recording applications I think it's fair to say most of us think of quantizing our tracks in terms of rhythm and pitch correction or reducing imprecision.
Another word I'm bumping into on digital recording threads these days is "instanciate". Based on context this word seems to mean something like insert on a channel strip, as in a plugin or or a software instrument. Online searches tell me it's just a misspelling of instantiate but I've heard it used in a Studio One video tutorial and just read it on the Logic Pro Help forum.
I'm very interested in digital recording words, terms, and lingo that others on this forum find confusing, weird or just plain wacky.
BTW - This is primarily for fun so let 'er rip!

[KevWind]

Actually there are some terms that are esoteric but I don't find quantize or instantiate to be so .

Usually the esoteric part is because of different terms being used by different mfg's to describe more or less the same feature
For example Flex Time in Logic is Elastic Audio in Pro Tools

As for 'Quantize it is what the definition for electronics states. In digital it is the same meaning but is a feature most DAWs have for handling midi . That randomizes or (make continuously variable) the notes timing wise, to give it a more human timing feel and less of a mechanical robotic feel.

And instantiate is just a quirk of common pronunciation like substantiate, we tend to throw in a "shee" sound, but in fact" instanciate" is a misspelling

[unimogbert]

............

[Trevor B.]

So here's where things get confusing. The first quote is from the Logic Pro Help forum.
"But as soon as I instanciate and connect some Vienna Ensemble Pros the negative delay happens".
The second quote is from a word site illustrating a contextual use of the word instantiate.
"His large mansion instantiates for visitors the success he enjoys as an entrepreneur".
Not only is the spelling different but based on context so is the meaning. And while I get that to quantize a recorded signal is to make it conform to a prescribed set of values, most people approaching the world of digital recording for the first time would probably relate more to terms like fine tune and fix than quantize.
To be clear, I don't actually object to the word quantize. In fact it's a great word for eliciting bemused expressions from my non musician/digital recording friends when they ask what I've been up to of late and I say, "Quantizing my audio tracks".

[Bob Womack]

My dad had a saying: "If you can't communicate your concept to a total novice you probably don't know it well enough yourself." Technical jargon is a short-hand to allow tech types to use less words when repeatedly speaking of something. However, when they stop communicating to the common man, they've become an impediment rather than a help.

The most complicated audio mixing console I ever used, a Solid State Logic 4000 series, had the very best technical manual I ever read.


I worked on that one for ten years. The two manuals (console and computer) managed to mix comedy and information to make a great read. I still have a copy of each.

Bob

[Trevor B.]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

The most complicated audio mixing console I ever used, a Solid State Logic 4000 series, had the very best technical manual I ever read.
I worked on that one for ten years. The two manuals (console and computer) managed to mix comedy and information to make a great read. I still have a copy of each.

Bob

And that is one very impressive looking console!!!

[jman60]

The trick to learning and understanding this type of software (at least IMO) is you need to takes things slowly and
experiment with what something in particular does. At least that's what I've found using Reaper. Using Cockos.com
has helped me figure things out.

Per Cockos.com...
Audio Quantization in Reaper
Audio quantization is aligning the beats in an audio-item to a grid or to a predefined groove.
In Reaper this is actually item-quantization, as you can apply it to midi or audio-items. Note however, regarding midi you'd
normally use midi notes quantization.
In other DAWs audio quantization are named e.g. Elastic Audio, Audio Quantize, Beat Detective and Time Warp.

That's fairly plain and simple (at least to me anyway).

As an amateur DAW user, I've depended on researching the web, You Tube video tutorials as well as Cockos.com for information.
Especially with Reaper, you can find a boat load of tutorials on YT and that has helped me quite a bit for learning terms
and definitions.

From this I've put together my own data base for reference over the course of time.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Trevor B.

And that is one very impressive looking console!!!

It had over 5000 controls and indicators on the front panel. That particular one lives at a studio in Canada now. I miss it.

Bob

[Trevor B.]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

It had over 5000 controls and indicators on the front panel. That particular one lives at a studio in Canada now. I miss it.

Bob

Hey Bob,
5000 controls??? So operating a jumbo jet would be pretty straight-forward for you, right(lol)?

[jman60]

I can't imagine having that many controls to deal with.

I have to say that's one big board...

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Trevor B.

Hey Bob,
5000 controls??? So operating a jumbo jet would be pretty straight-forward for you, right(lol)?

When I was young I used to get google eyes in an aircraft cockpit but after working on several large-scale recording boards in large sessions multi-engine aircraft seem more doable. The two jobs share the concept of "the scan," keeping an organized visual scan of the various readouts and controls to stay in control of the situation.

Originally Posted by jman60

I can't imagine having that many controls to deal with. I have to say that's one big board...

But here's a key: That is a forty-eight channel board with over 100 nearly-identical controls and indicators per channel. In other words, each channel has much the same facilities available. The largest of those analog systems I ever managed was in a remote recording truck for a music festival. I had fifty-six channels on an SSL 4000 series console and twenty-four more on a Neve console. Lots o' poop to manage.

The next generation Neves reduced the knobs by having one set of knobs shared by all those channels. Here's what a console with TWICE the channels looked like in digital:

That's another live music festival being recorded with video for a 5.1 DVD mix. Here I'm preparing to switch the fader row from "Volume" to "All Aux" mode to adjust the reverb send on the vocals. The down side on this generation was that many of the indicators and controls were hidden from view unless you called attention to a particular channel so much of "the scan" was impossible. Geographic association between a particular input and its controls was lost and reaction time was much slower. It was a great sounding and extremely flexible console but slower to operate.

The current, third generation of digital boards has brought us into the "glass cockpit" generation. Here's is a Calrec Artemis with 250 mono, stereo, or 5.1 channels:

They've managed to reasonably put much of the readout and controls on touch screens so you have your scan back and have a friendly interface. And get this: you can load the screens on the upstand with whatever controls and indicators you need to provide for your method of operation. It is finally good sounding and both quick and intuitive to operate. We've got a pair of them and they are great to operate.

Bob

[Trevor B.]

And the cost of a Calrec Artemis with 250 mono, stereo, or 5.1 channels???

[Bob Womack]

In the range of $250,000 plus service contract. Think about that: the SSL 4000G series with forty-eight channels ran $400,000. I found the company a deal on a G series housed in a 4000 E frame for much less.

Bob

[jman60]

Wow, that digital board is really something else!!

Listening to people like yourself with your knowledge and experience about recorded music
makes me appreciate the skills needed to create the music we all listen to.

Me messing around with what I have on my computer shows me how much I don't know.

Thanx for sharing,
Jim

[Trevor B.]

Originally Posted by jman60

Wow, that digital board is really something else!!

Listening to people like yourself with your knowledge and experience about recorded music
makes me appreciate the skills needed to create the music we all listen to.

Me messing around with what I have on my computer shows me how much I don't know.

Thanx for sharing,
Jim

I couldn't agree more. Also, the differences between the analog console and the digital board really speak to what a huge transformation the digital age has wrought.