“Signature” processing, “Boutique” processing – it’s just “Come Dine With Me” with knobs on.

So I made it back alive, hair full of ash, eyes smarting from the sulphurous fumes.  Or something.
Now, onto more frivolous issues.  How many of you have in your arsenal of rapidly depleting external boxes of tricks, a processor you absolutely feel you can’t do without?

With more and more processing being built into digital boards, what scope is there left for truly creative control over what the audience hears?  If all the processing becomes standardised, then doesn’t the sound become so as well?

I realise I am “painting with broad strokes” here, but that’s the point.  Whilst there is a vast proliferation of available plug-ins to manipulate and mangle sound in a computer recording environment, it’s still pretty much the case that if you buy a Yamaha digital desk and use the effects inside, be they dynamics, EQ or time related (reverb/delay/pitch I am thinking of), you are getting Yamaha algorithms.  Nothing wrong with that in itself , but what if you don’t like Yamaha EQ?

If you buy a Soundcraft digital desk, you’re gonna get BSS algorithms.  If you buy a Midas digital, chances are you’re gonna get KT algorithms and so it goes on…

Maybe the concept of individual engineers’ “sound” or “polish” is finally coming into its own.  There aren’t as many ways left to put your stamp on the mix apart from using something that’s not going to be built-in and that you can guarantee not everyone will have.  But can this become a self-defeating purpose?  Just because it’s “niche” and supposedly imparts a certain something that makes it your own, doesn’t necessarily make it better.

I remember hearing a tale some years ago about an engineer who insisted that he needed a DN360 across the master outputs of the desk and that things wouldn’t be right without this final essential processing.  This was duly provided, and I recall seeing the publicity shot afterwards and it being pointed out that, whilst there was a slight bit of “creative correction” applied to the faders, the graphic was bypassed (although powered up!). 

Should such a conceit even be considered?  Is not the job of the engineer just to invisbly aid in the conveyance of the sound on stage, to best effect, to the audience assembled in front of said stage?

Just to finish on an XTA note, rather that the philosophical one that was developing(!), our SiDD processor became such a “signature” device for a lot of engineers, with them carrying a couple round in a soft rack case to use on a few select inserts or across masters, although this may have been as much to do with having a general purpose toolbox of useful things, as wanting to have a unique sound.  Reviews of SiDD when it came out all talked of the transparency and “lack” of processing so it just did its job in a non-intrusive manner.

I use one at home on the masters of my desk for recording and it can indeed be made to impart something extra to what’s going on, but that’s a creative process not a corrective one.  And so we’re back to that question…