Section 5: Studio Surveys

Firstly, this main test starts off interesting as question 1’s results is in opposite to the pilot test version of the same question. As now the testers during the main test believe that software is better creatively, and this is further backed up with question 2 with the testers believing software offers more creativeness, freedom, and stimulus.

This is interesting due to its conflict with the previous research found in the literature review and the pilot test’s first question, but it is also worth noting that during the interview section and with the Zoran & Paradiso (2010) article, it was found that software technology has progressed since Lau (2012) article and now software that is emulating hardware technology is actually quite accurate at replicating that sound without the drawbacks, as Karl mentioned during the interview section that he wants a clean, pure sound from the software emulation of the hardware kit and despite hardware being amazing, it will eventually break and thus its colour will change whereas software will never change its colour. (Zoran & Paradiso, 2010)

So going off this information, it makes sense that these testers believe software to be better as it can deliver the same timbre of hardware without any of the issues or complications that come with working with hardware. (Lau, 2012; Zoran & Paradiso, 2011; Hagan, 2016)

Question 3 and 4 are tied as they are to do with correcting an issue, the testers believe that software is far superior for correcting errors which will be due to the non-destructive nature of software whereas question four asks the testers if they believe the reset-ability of software hinders decision making or improves freedom and they were split 50/50.

This shows that despite the testers believing software to be better for recorrecting a mistake or tweaking, it comes with a downside being that you could spend hours on a single audio effect process trying to ‘perfect’ when it already sounds great, this in turn will waste time and effort. This is backed up by Robin and Richard as they bring up this exact point in the interview section and how they believe hardware is good for this as it makes you choose decisions and sticking with it rather than going back on it, and question 5 backs that point further due it being about that whether hardware needing to be printed helps decision making or negatively affects freedom and the testers also agree with Robin and Richard as 85% of them believe it helps with decision making. (Lau, 2012)

An advantage hardware often gets against software is that its tactile thus supplies a feel to the process whereas software feels discounted due to being mainly controlled via a mouse. Robin, Richard, and Daniel believe this to be true. So question 6 was designed to find out if this tactile advantage could be removed with software being mapped to a midi controller and the testers believe this to be case, with 57% saying yes to it gaining a tactile feel but it is worth noting that 42% still said no so perhaps it would depend on the controller being used. (Taylor, 2015; Lau, 2012)

Question 7, 8 and 9 are tied as they are to do with software and their properties compared to hardware. Question 7 and 8 are in agreement with each other as the testers believe software is better and the questions ask; correctively, is software or hardware better? And which offers the most precise processing?. This falls in line with Daniel, Robin, Richard, Karl, the pilot testers, and Lau, 2012 article as they all mentioned how software is so much better for precise, clean, and better corrective processing compared to hardware.

But what makes this interesting is question 9, as the testers were asked if the cleanliness and lack of noise floor of software is better than the unique timbre of hardware and the testers are near unanimous for hardware with its timbre still being better than software. Which is interesting as since software emulations can replicate hardware’s timbre it is a bit of a moot point and it also falls in line with producers being more entrepreneurial in modern times found in Walzer (2016) and Burgess (2008) articles with them needing to sell themselves more and since hardware’s timbre offers a unique selling point as Robin and Richard stated previously, it gives reasons as to why the testers believe it still being better than software’s properties. (Walzer, 2016; Burgess, 2008)

Question 10 also backs this point up as it asks the testers this directly and they agree with this, as 78% say that the unique timbre of hardware helps entice customers. (Walzer, 2016; Burgess, 2008)

Question 11 and 12 ask the testers about visual stimulus with hardware and software, as question 11 asks them which is more visually easier to understand, and they chose hardware which falls in line with a few of the previous testers from the pilot test who stated that software can be sometimes complicated to look at. Whereas question 12 asks the testers if hardware’s lack of visual aids helps make for better processing or software’s visual aid helps, and the testers also chose hardware as well which makes sense as a complaint software often gets is it being visual and making people mix with their eyes and not their ears, the pilot testers, Robin, and Richard stated has stated this previously.  

​

Question 14 and 15 are about option paralysis, and also limited environments. As something that came up during the interview section was such topics as both Robin, Richard, and Karl all mentioned that they have dealt with option paralysis while in an unfamiliar or technologically filled studio, so it was decided upon to turn into a question for the testers for further evidence and as the graphs shows (Side Note: It was poorly designed, think of the answers as Yes, Yes, or No, No. Example: Q: Creative choice? A: No. Q: Environment? A: Yes.) the testers also fall in line with Robin, Richard, and Karl feelings towards studios with a lot of equipment and fancy studios with limited gear. (Science of People, n.d; Robair, 2012)

Question 15 furthers backs up the environment part of question 14, as it is to do with the amount of equipment and whether a smaller amount is better than having loads. And the testers unanimously believe that a smaller amount of equipment is better is which is what Robin and Richard believe also as they state you know exactly what can do, you understand the tools available to you. (Robair, 2012)

Question 16 and 17 are about workflow, and how it affects the outcome of the sessions within the studios. (Camilleri, 2010) and the testers believe that accessibility, ease of use and an efficient workflow bring out the best music of the musicians and lead to the best creative decisions as there will be less time dealing with technical issues. (Camilleri, 2010)

Question 18 is interesting, as this question was previously in the pilot test and resulted in Commercial studio having fewer/no technical issues. Whereas this time it is the opposite as now home studio are now voted to be the one with less issues. As previously mentioned in the pilot test, commercial studio would have been less likely to have issues due to the engineers/ producers being more knowledgeable compared to their home studio counterparts. (Wilson, 2011; Everest, 2015; Long, 2013, Newell, 2017)

But it is worth calling back to what Karl, Robin and Richard mentioned about option paralysis and question 15, as they mention how when dealing with loads of equipment it can become a problem on how to deal with it and you become stuck on what to use and do not know the equipment and the testers in question 15 believe smaller, more familiar pieces of equipment are better so this means that a commercial studio can have more issues if it is unfamiliar.

So, a commercial studio when manned by the regular engineers & producer will run smoother since they know the kit whereas if an engineer or producer hired the studio out they would struggle due to a lack of knowledge of the studios kit and space. (Wilson, 2011; Everest, 2015; Long, 2013, Newell, 2017; Robair, 2012)

Question 19, 20, and 21 are about the intimidation factor that can affect some musicians and ruin their takes and also make it harder for them to be creative. (Camilleri, 2010; Bell, 2014; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Harrison, 2014; Thompson & Lashua, 2014). These series of questions is trying to figure out if musicians get intimidated, how intimidated they feel and if the team of engineers and producer can make them feel comfortable or will they always feel intimidated. (Camilleri, 2010; Bell, 2014; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Harrison, 2014; Thompson & Lashua, 2014).

So again like mentioned in the pilot test, despite most of the testers saying no, it is still worth considering the testers who said yes as commercial studios are to accommodate everyone. (Bell, 2014). Question 20 is an interesting one and backs up the points brought up in the pilot test as it is hard to pin point an answer, as the gauges with the most responses are: 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 which shows that it can be a different answer for any different kind of person, as one tester did put 10, which was described in the question as, “10 being extremely intimidating to the point of not being able to work with them.” Which means this person cannot bare being in a studio with a team of engineers. This backs up the point that studios that can ran by one engineer/ producer are effective as it allows for individuals who suffer with stage fright and anxiety to perform to their best. (Camilleri, 2010; Bell, 2014; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Harrison, 2014; Thompson & Lashua, 2014).

Question 21 asks whether the team can help make the musician feel less intimidated. And despite having 64% towards it being a yes, it is still worth considering that 36% that feel like the team cannot help. It is clear that studios should be built to be able to ran by a team and one person when the situation calls for it and based on this data it is something any producers should ask their clients before going into session. (Camilleri, 2010; Bell, 2014; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Harrison, 2014; Thompson & Lashua, 2014).