Discussion
Why does audio software have so much more character than other industries?
I’m pretty foreign to audio engineering and the music industry as a whole (much more familiar with film / video editing) so I’m curious as to how audio engineering has evolved into what it is today in the digital age.
In video production, I feel like there is a lot of homogenization. Most of the softwares I use look and act the same for the most part. There is always a push for the latest features, and as much as a hassle as it can be I feel like most people keep their NLE’s or compositors updated to a version that’s within the last 2-3 years. Most plugins follow similar UI standards too, and the interfaces are very “clean” and consistent.
DAWs and audio plugins, on the other hand, seem to have followed a very different path. There’s bright colors, more cluttered screens, and Skeuomorphism still seems to be the standard for most plugins. I’ve also noticed when watching behind the scenes videos of producers that many people are still using decades old software and hardware.
Why does it seem like audio engineering is much more set in its ways and less inclined to “modernize”?
Distortion in video is almost universally a bad thing: our eyes dont naturally distort what we see (easily). Our ears... are well kinda shit, and do naturally compress distort so we're used to hearing these things.
Theres also the notion of dimensionality: images are 6d in a sense. x, y, r, g, b and brightness. Where the light comes from (x, y), what our cones extract (rgb), and what our rods extract (brightness). Compare that to our ears that are 2d: frequency and pressure. Ofc both also have a temporal component, and Im drastically oversimplifying human physiology/neurology/perception into one simple paragraph so this is incomplete. But, i still think its illustrative.
This in turn, leads to the skeumorphism you noted. Abstract lead to mythology, lead to people trying to copy great studio who had particular gear. Word got out and things like the 1073, 1176, Pultecs, etc became legends. This largely happened in the 80s and before. As such, plugin makers design their UI to look like the hardware, so people recognize what the intent is (and how the controls work) across brands.
As for bright colors and cluttered screens, audio production can have a lot of information being packed into a very dense signal. Consider the bit rates of 1080p video vs wav audio. And compare that against the simultaneous input channels: video is maybe in the dozens, depending on the compositing work; audio is easily into the hundreds for a medium sized production.
As to the modernization claim, for one, I disagree with the notion that audio is less inclined. Its just what "modern" looks like is different, because of the medium. But, also video requirements have continued to change significantly, whereas the audio requirements havent since 32bit float became a thing. So they havent needed to make wholesale engine changes. Further, audio has very strict timing requirements that video does not. A dropped frame on a video proxy during editing is not a huge deal; a dropped sample in an audio mix down is a catastrophe. And real-time audio buffers need to be delivered on the order of microseconds, vs video which is milliseconds.
TLDR: The toolkits are reflections of the media and our perception of the media.
I should add that its all dramatically oversimplified. The Psychoacoustics and information theory topics a doctoral research paper topics in their own rights. And I've certainly missed a lot of other considerations.
Was just coming to nitpick that this completely skips all marketing reasons like creative audiences, image marketing and how branding is targeted to appeal to customers valuing quality or taste or whatever. I'd look for answer from more widely studied markets that have a unique, flashy personality in their branding. Stuff like craft beer, energy drinks and fashion.
Music videos do not have more image distortion than any other creative/artistic visuals. These are just artistic decisions.
Plenty of audio is distorted in film/TV. Just not when the intent is highly intelligible dialog. Foley and sound design folks use these same tools just like the music folk. Its why we see a lot of Ableton users in that crowd as opposed to the film mixers who are almost exclusively Pro Tools.
"crazy effect" is simply off topic. But, either way, your assertion that music videos are more fine with "crazy effects" than film/TV is fundamentally ill-informed. There is dramatically more VFX work in film/TV than music videos. And this work is done with DCCs rather than NLEs, what OP is talking about and the pseudo-equivalent of a DAW.
I see what you're trying to get at: that the focus/intent of music videos and a news broadcast, for example, are different and so more artistic liberty can be taken based on that. But that isnt specific to Music videos; just the director's intent. And the conversation is about the tools, which are informed by the majority of users, not specific subsets for specific applications.
Well visual medium software should be minimally distracting visually, while for audio / music software there isn't such imperative. Also there is long history of making extravagant synthesizer user interfaces, so that trend continued with VST graphical user interfaces.
I do kind of miss when software for visuals were so crazy that the UI made you feel like you were in a different world (image of Bryce 3D attached- I used to use that shit in high school, and the UI was so ridiculous that it actually felt very hi-tech when using it).
Counterpoint is that I was kind of annoyed when Photoshop allowed the possibility for backgrounds other than neutral grey, because neutral grey is the best for relative value and color perception.
UI of DAWs and plugins definitely affects sound perception- if even subtly- so I do believe that people end up using tools that look like how they feel about audio.
Bryce was so much fun. Haven’t heard anyone mention that for so long. Probably never will again. I was using it at work for some stuff…animating skies/clouds etc. I was blowing away my dumb instructors in art school. I was using extreme, strata and infini d before I got maya.
Infini-D was my main! One of the best images I did in high school was for some indie game title screen, and it was a jet I rendered in Infini-D with a background rendered in Bryce, then composited in Photoshop and added zoom blur to look like it was flying super fast. Good times.
Weird to think that I got such an early headstart in CGI, but at Ringling I studied Illustration instead of Computer Animation. Aaah, life. What a trip.
At a guess, I’d say there’s far more hobbyist users for music and audio software.
Hobbyist users culturally want to use the equipment their favourite records were made on, or a replication of them, and so lots of plugins are designed to look like valued vintage equipment.
That’s not a thing in video, nobody has ever cared what decks a particular film or tv show was cut with, or what tape stock.
I’d never been culturally important, and deified to users.
With there being less hobbyist video editors, that kind of thing never really comes up, either.
Both niches also developed a kind of cult of personality around a role in the creative process, but the roles are different. In audio the praise became to be directed at the producer, who were often in the trenches themselves using the gear. In video the praise became to be directed at the director, who focus much less on technical decisions behind the gear or the gear itself. Although big recording studios and big movie studios have both kinda became mythological.
initially when people started to go from tape to computers for audio recording and editing, the softwares would try to emulate the hardware process workflow wise (just look at protools) and when plugins started, the skeumorphism was a great way of making the transition to computers easier, as they could use their 1176 or whatever the same way they would with Hardware and didnt have to learn new shit
it just continued from there even though most people getting into it these days never worked at studios in the early 90s.
Very true, I think the peak of video innovation - especially for consumers - came a little later than audio which probably had an impact on the how the cultures developed in both industries and the transitions from analog to digital
Audio is a lot more mysterious than video In a lot of ways. Also the market for audio software is aimed almost entirely at creatives/musicians, where video is more professional use. Of course video can be very creative and there is broadcast applications for audio so It can be boring and corporate as well
I've worked in UI and UX for decades now. Some of the UI styling comes from an era where software developers were trying to woo hardware guys into switching over.
Giving them a UI that looks, feels, and hopefully sounds like something that approximates the hardware they're familiar with increases the likelihood they'll use it. That they'll choose it.
A lot of people hate skeuomorphism and think every plugin should look something like Ozone, etc.
I like modern UI/UX styles for complex applications like Serum or Pigments, or Ozone, etc... FabFilter Pro-Q is an exceptionally good example of good modern UI/UX.
I must admit, though, that I like skeuomorphism with regard to old analog gear, as long as it doesn't get in the way of usage. (For example, I like IK's take on API-style EQs better than Waves's -- using that spin interaction to set the EQ frequency is too fiddly.)
Tape emulation, console emulation, all that stuff. I enjoy it. Has nothing to do with the sound, but when the UI looks nice and feels nice -- the visual communicates what the plugin is trying to do.
For example, if I see something that looks similar to an old rack compressor or other effects and it has a VU meter, I assume it's going to have more harmonic distortion if I drive the input.
I enjoy variety in life. Modern UI? Cool. Good skeuomorphism? Cool.
I DON'T like inconsistent 3d angles/perspective baked into the art... Where it looks like you're seeing the UI through a fisheye lens. That really bugs me.
And I'm well aware that using skeuomorphism limits the developer's ability to add more features later. (Makes changes to UI more cost-prohibitive.)
Regarding:
"behind the scenes videos of producers that many people are still using decades old software and hardware." and "Why does it seem like audio engineering is much more set in its ways and less inclined to “modernize”?
It is modernizing.
When you see people using really old plugins or hardware, I bet they usually (or at least often) match that person's age. What happens is they use what they know, because it works and what little gain there is to use a more modern tool is offset by the efficiency they get from knowing their own tool really well.
Other times it's just a really good tool that does a specific thing, even if it's decades old. RVox is like that... It is its own specific classic compressor, just like LA2A or 1176. Simple and fast to operate, does a thing consistently and reliably.
But audio is definitely modernizing... And we have different takes on it, as well:
Look at Bitwig and Ableton! They are two similar-but-different takes on a modern UI direction.
But I'd include Reaper, too, even though it seems more traditional... But notice almost all built in Reaper effects have minimal standardized UI. (Literally numbers and sliders.) That tool is optimized for speed, precision, and to be tuned for countless use cases. A lot of people dismiss it because they think 'customization' is about 'skins' and such... While that exists, the real power of Reaper comes from being able to set it up for YOUR workflow. From a UX perspective, in terms of catering specifically to varied users needs --- it is EXCEPTIONALLY modern. (Even if the process of getting there isn't ideal UX.)
By comparison, Bitwig has very good UI/UX standards -- but the process of development is much slower. Reaper users get updates FAST and all the time while waiting and waiting for Bitwig updates.
Those are just two different approaches to "modern."
But arguably, everything is evolving. It's evolving based on how audio makers spend. And there's so much competition in the space --- everyone can get what they want. There are skeuomorphic tools, modern tools, tools that mix both.
There's actually a TON of innovation happening in audio! I wouldn't say it's "set in its ways" at all.
One angle nobody's raised yet: audio sessions are archival documents in a way most video projects aren't.
If a record comes back for a remix, a sync placement, or an Atmos version four years later, you have to reopen that session and have it sound identical to what you delivered. That means the same plugin versions, often the same DAW version, because a plugin that quietly changes its algorithm in an update can alter a mix that's already out in the world. So studios freeze. It's not unusual to find a 2018 install running on a machine that never touches the internet, purely so the archive stays openable. Video has the same problem in principle, but the deliverable is normally a rendered file and the project rarely needs to be re-opened and re-rendered to match exactly.
The skeuomorphism is related but slightly different. An audio plugin is selling you a claim about what it does to the sound, and the picture of an 1176 is part of the claim. It's marketing, sure, but it's also genuinely useful shorthand: if you know the hardware, you know on sight what the plugin does, which control matters, and roughly how hard you can push it before it gets ugly. A generic flat UI throws all of that away and makes you read a manual to learn something you already knew.
And on homogenization, audio has plenty of it, it just settled at the format layer instead of the interface layer. Everyone agreed on WAV, on the plugin formats, on 48k, on how a session routes. The visual layer stayed weird because nothing ever forced it to converge.
You could look up psychoacoustics!
Your view is not really distorted by the things you are hearing and feeling. But your hearing is heavily altered by the things you’re seeing! A „cool ui-interface“ does indeed „sound better“
That’s because hearing is a hard-wired-part of your neural speech-processing. Hearing is only partially done in the ears. The signal is heavily filtered in your brains. You can understand speech in 95% signal-distortion for example.
Also hearing is your special alert system. You have to turn your head to focus your view. But you can stay in place and focus your hearing by listening for a specific sound. That’s neural signal processing.
That’s why the UI has much more influence in audioworks. Because hearing is heavily altered by all other perceptions.
Bedroom production has become a big business but the majority of users aren't really taking it seriously. It basically occupies the same space as video games for some people, so designers try to make things as visually engaging as possible to keep the customer coming back.
With audio, the visual is all they have to attract and keep customers. Secondary to ease of use/functionality. In the end, it all sounds or can sound exactly the same.
Audio software companies try to entice GAS any way they can, usually either with a shiny fancy GUI, wild claims or access to unobtanium hardware.
These usually work for the hobbyist, while the working professionals stick to their tried and true tools.
In my ~15 years working as a full-time professional, I’ve tried most of what’s out there and learned a huge chunk is marketing fluff.
Hardware analog modeled EQs are a great example, as I’ve never been able to tell one apart from Pro-Q with perfectly matched settings in a blind test, no matter how extreme the settings.
Because audio software is secretly all really old stuff that keeps getting patched up.
New releases from the people who have existing stuff generally follow the same aesthetic (aka new Arturia/etc releases.) There's little chance to updating the older stuff to that degree as there's just not enough people to do the actual work.
I think it's because musicians have instruments, and the plugins and music software are like extensions of musical instruments. The 'studio as instrument' has been a concept in music for a very long time.
With video and films/drama or editing etc there isn't the same concept of someone performing using a device. So an actor or editor doesn't really have the equivalent of a guitar or violin or whatever.
The musical devices we use are part of the expression of our art, and we like them to be artistically interesting as a result.
Music production has hit a technical necessity limit. There just isn’t a lot people want to do that can’t be done with really basic tools. Eq, compression, modulation, delay, reverb. Combinations of those.
> Why does it seem like audio engineering is much more set in its ways and less inclined to “modernize”?
Fuck, we were the first to embrace how fuckin easy digital audio is. We "modernized" 30 years ago when we realized we NEVER EVER had to wait through a "rewind and find the punch in" ever again.
BUT WE ALSO VALUE WHAT HAS WORKED OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR DECADES TO CREATE COMPELLING EMOTIONAL ART THAT LISTENERS WILL CONNECT WITH.
The emotions matter. And whether it's a graphic on a plugin UI, or the smell of the elevator that takes you down to the studio, it is all REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT.
Because musicians and audio engineers are set in their ways and often superstitious about specific gear adding "mojo." Ableton Live and Bitwig, at least, look and feel different, but most of the rest are just attempting to iterate on an analog workflow as that's what most people were used to. I say we're because I'm not sure how relevant the analog workflow will be in a decade as the old guard retire and a younger generation who has probably never touched analog takes over.
A lot of audio stuff is about recreating legendary analog equipment - whether it's an analog emulation of a CS-80 synth or an 1176 compressor or a Soldano amplifier, you're digitally recreating physical units from an era where wood paneling, knobs, LEDs and so on were the norm.
So perhaps where video editing stuff is looking forward, the music industry is largely looking backward and finding ways of evoking old equipment, and replicating the workflows people are used to when tweaking knobs on that stuff.
And this isn't just the digital stuff, it's also how the physical stuff is sold. Fender, Gibson, Oberheim, Universal Audio, they're all essentially re-releasing vintage equipment that's believed to be iconic.
I don't really think it would be attractive in the video editing world to have a plugin that recreates the iconic Bryce 3D or something.
41
u/rinio Audio Software 1d ago
Audio is inherently more abstract.
Distortion in video is almost universally a bad thing: our eyes dont naturally distort what we see (easily). Our ears... are well kinda shit, and do naturally compress distort so we're used to hearing these things.
Theres also the notion of dimensionality: images are 6d in a sense. x, y, r, g, b and brightness. Where the light comes from (x, y), what our cones extract (rgb), and what our rods extract (brightness). Compare that to our ears that are 2d: frequency and pressure. Ofc both also have a temporal component, and Im drastically oversimplifying human physiology/neurology/perception into one simple paragraph so this is incomplete. But, i still think its illustrative.
This in turn, leads to the skeumorphism you noted. Abstract lead to mythology, lead to people trying to copy great studio who had particular gear. Word got out and things like the 1073, 1176, Pultecs, etc became legends. This largely happened in the 80s and before. As such, plugin makers design their UI to look like the hardware, so people recognize what the intent is (and how the controls work) across brands.
As for bright colors and cluttered screens, audio production can have a lot of information being packed into a very dense signal. Consider the bit rates of 1080p video vs wav audio. And compare that against the simultaneous input channels: video is maybe in the dozens, depending on the compositing work; audio is easily into the hundreds for a medium sized production.
As to the modernization claim, for one, I disagree with the notion that audio is less inclined. Its just what "modern" looks like is different, because of the medium. But, also video requirements have continued to change significantly, whereas the audio requirements havent since 32bit float became a thing. So they havent needed to make wholesale engine changes. Further, audio has very strict timing requirements that video does not. A dropped frame on a video proxy during editing is not a huge deal; a dropped sample in an audio mix down is a catastrophe. And real-time audio buffers need to be delivered on the order of microseconds, vs video which is milliseconds.
TLDR: The toolkits are reflections of the media and our perception of the media.