Sam Spoons wrote:The only people who could materially benefit from such AI would be the pros who might save some time but they probably do a better job just as quickly as any computer what is the point. For most of us it would defeat the object of the exercise, the pleasure derived from doing it yourself (however imperfectly).
I'm not convinced there Sam, i think there are a lot of musicians who aren't interested in the engineering side at all and just want to create a product. I suspect that's a larger potential user base than people who want to understand the difference between a dynamic eq and a multiband compressor.
You may well be right, I was looking at it from a sound engineers PoV not the musician's PoV.
That said the word 'product' in this context jars a little...
Last edited by Sam Spoons on Mon May 03, 2021 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sam Spoons wrote:The only people who could materially benefit from such AI would be the pros who might save some time but they probably do a better job just as quickly as any computer what is the point. For most of us it would defeat the object of the exercise, the pleasure derived from doing it yourself (however imperfectly).
I'm not convinced there Sam, i think there are a lot of musicians who aren't interested in the engineering side at all and just want to create a product. I suspect that's a larger potential user base than people who want to understand the difference between a dynamic eq and a multiband compressor.
I agree I'm one of those although I've warmed to the mixing side more and more as it has been forced upon me, but I'd have killed for something like this a few years back. I think an A.I. DAW would be very appealing indeed to many producers as it takes the time and cost out of the engineering side of things. I suppose it would be a dark day for sound engineers though!
blinddrew wrote:Hmmm. I suspect most people are more interested in the song than the mix.
I'd agree up to a point, but let's take an example... Buggles' 'Video Killed the Radio Star'. How would a 'normal' mix of that sound?
I don't want to live in a world where that kind of creativity is deferred to the 'beige everywhere' world of AI.
This is why I'm not concerned about it. But it is coming and will be enough for a lot of people.
Look at it this way perhaps:
Take a random scroll through SoundCloud, consider how basic / bad some of the mixing is there. Stuff that's obviously been recorded in an untreated room, with no understanding of mic positioning, loads of low frequency rumble because the user doesn't know what a HPF is, lots of lisping because they've discovered the de-esser but have completely over-cranked it, the whole thing is flat as a pancake because they stuck a limiter on the master buss and cranked it to make it loud... etc etc etc.
These are the songs and the people for which it'll be a godsend.
And actually it'll be a benefit for all of us because all of these tracks will end up better and we'll be able to appreciate the songs more.
What it will do though is bring the kind of conversations that mastering engineers put up with down to the mix engineer as well.
You know the ones I'm talking about...
We can only speculate what an intelligent DAW could do might be amazing, look at the virtual/ intelligent tools open to us like Oeksound Soothe 2. Drums you can get a super realistic sound these days and they'll chuck in the groove played for you as well. I wish it was here now
Rob Hansen wrote:Lol! This question could logically be phrased in a way that is certain to upset some people: "When do I get an A.I. engineer?" I think the results would be interesting, like cgi characters in movie. That idea seemed to threaten actors for a time but ultimately turned out to be a moot point. Similarly, good human engineers need not fret. A recording A.I. would be okay for a basic assist, but I'd really just rather have something to talk to.
Suppose the sentient DAW changes the song a bit and then claims a cut
TheLegit wrote:Suppose the sentient DAW changes the song a bit and then claims a cut
It's an interesting challenge to come further down the line. At the moment, in the US at least, a copyright can only be held by a human being, but you could easily see it being added into EULAs.
Johnsy wrote:"Computer, the hi-hats are too loud."
"The hi-hats are perfect."
"No computer! They're too loud. Turn the hi-hats down please!"
"... I'm afraid I can't do that."
Given that in AI environments no one knows how the algorithm determined the solution reached...the "explainability problem"... I can easily see the code provider staking a claim for AI production credits.
Interesting piece that. I wish I could find the references to a couple of things i read years ago about 8-bit monsters and AIs building logic devices using actual chips not models.
Like a lot of tech things, terms like "AI" are so broad as to be nearly meaningless. In the lazy engineer's world it's hardly likely to be risky but given how bad most researchers are with statistics, I would be very hesitant to trust any science coming from AI. I know from direct experience that it's wreaking havoc in business.
Albatross wrote:I wouldn't want it, would take all the fun out of it. And all those happy accidents would be gone.
This +1
I get it, and I agree. I don't want software that makes mixing decisions. But I'd be perfectly happy for *other* people to use it, because then there'd be so many tunes with a homogenous sound oozing out of compressed formats on streaming sites that *my* idiosyncratic hand-crafted bespoke artisanal mixes would stand out by comparison. Maybe even favorably.
I think the results would be interesting, like cgi characters in movie. That idea seemed to threaten actors for a time but ultimately turned out to be a moot point. Similarly, good human engineers need not fret. A recording A.I. would be okay for a basic assist, but I'd really just rather have something to talk to.
