University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining technology obsolescence in music scoring studios

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining technology obsolescence in music scoring studios

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Examining Technology Obsolescence in Music Scoring Studios
By
Erin Michael Rettig

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2022

© Copyright by Erin Michael Rettig 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Erin Michael Rettig certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kathy Stowe
Anthony B. Maddox
Courtney L. Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Grounded in the Rogers (1995) theory of diffusion, this field study applied thе theory to the
problem of technology obsolescence within the music scoring industry. Technology
obsolescence is important to study because it plays a specific and pivotal role in business
success, longevity, and sustainability. The purpose of this study was to examine the critical needs
and considerations of music scoring mixers actively engaged in the art of music recording and
recommend solutions so that facility management is able to make data-driven decisions about
managing technology upgrades. Scoring mixers were selected for this study based on their daily
participation in the music recording process, and their experience with the currently available
technology for music recording. This study used qualitative research methods, specifically the
collection of interview data. Analysis of the interview data resulted in eight noteworthy findings
related to workflow, technology usage preference, and recommendations about future
interventions.
Keywords: technology, technology obsolescence, music, scoring, film score, media,
scoring stage, recording, scoring mixer, audio recording, postproduction, digital audio
workstation, DAW, Pro Tools, analog audio, digital audio, control surface, sound

v
Acknowledgements
The culmination of this study, endeavor, and document has taken years to complete.
Anything of this size and scope has a little piece of so many people in it, and it is here I would
like to acknowledge many of those in my “village,” that helped bring this to reality.
My ever-patient wife, Soon Hee, who has traveled this road with me, and continues to put
up with never-ending detours and questions. My dissertation chair Dr. Courtney Malloy, who
spent countless hours working with me and the manuscript to narrow in on my research focus
and final document. The other two members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Kathy Stowe and
Dr. Anthony Maddox, who pushed me even further and pressed me to ask the critical questions.
Denis Saint-Amand, a true mentor who taught me so much, and trusted me as his
successor and steward to a truly sacred space. Marc Gebauer, who agreed with Denis to trust me
with the stage and gave his time and expertise when things went wrong; never complaining,
simply always willing to lend a helping hand when the stage was on fire. Skip Longfellow and
Craig Weintraub, who have been with me through much of my academic journey and are
personally responsible for recommendations that were a part of my application for both graduate
programs. David Grimaldi, with whom I have had many amazing conversations, and who has
provided some unbelievable insights that created the amazing space to think, reflect, investigate,
question, and see the very many sides of “the burrito.” Geoff Ethridge, my “Elmer” in the HAM
radio community, and fellow artist interrogating the intersection between art and science; a man
who taught me to be courageous to ask the really important questions. George Arthur Tracy who
was always encouraging my progress and provided much needed assistance with Microsoft Excel
and many of the graphs and diagrams in this document. Dr. Craig Detweiler, who through a

vi
seemingly chance encounter on the other side of the planet, literally propelled my journey of
personal and academic discovery, scrutiny, and inquiry.
The local scoring crews in Southern California: Damon Tedesco, Peter Nelson, Tim
Lauber, Christine Sirois, Hoss Yekband, Greg Dennen, Rich Wheeler. I am eternally grateful to
consider myself a part of “the scoring family,” and will never forget all that I have learned from
each of you.
The interview respondents who agreed to participate in the study: they must remain
anonymous, but I stand in awe of their courage, experience, knowledge, and candor. My hope is
that this study provides a little encouragement in data-driven decision making that will keep the
industry alive and flourishing for decades to come.
And finally, to mom and dad, who never grew tired of my questions, or my insatiable
desire to understand “why.” Mom and dad, who sparked my curiosity so many years ago.
I love you both.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xi
Examining Technology Obsolescence in Music Scoring Studios ................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 6
Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 7
Overview of Audio Recording Technology ............................................................ 8
Analog and Digital Audio ........................................................................................ 9
Analog-to-Digital and Digital-to-Analog Conversion ........................................... 10
Modern Digital Multichannel Formats (Point to Point) ........................................ 11
Audio Over Internet Protocol (AoIP) .................................................................... 13
Audio Latency ....................................................................................................... 18
Mitigating Technology Obsolescence ............................................................................... 18
Expanded Description ............................................................................................ 18
Obsolescence Typologies ...................................................................................... 20
Consequence of Obsolescence ............................................................................... 22
Replacement Strategies .......................................................................................... 23
Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................... 24
Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 27

viii
Research Question ............................................................................................................. 27
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 27
Research Setting .................................................................................................... 27
The Researcher ...................................................................................................... 28
Data Sources .......................................................................................................... 29
Interviews .............................................................................................................. 29
Participants ............................................................................................................ 29
Instrumentation ...................................................................................................... 30
Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................... 31
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 31
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 33
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 34
Description of Findings ..................................................................................................... 36
Finding 1: Analog Is the Preferred Console Type for Score Recording ............... 36
Finding 2: Multitrack Bussing Not Preferred, and Stem Flexibility Is
Critical ................................................................................................................... 40
Finding 3: Preferred Microphone Preamplifiers (PRE) and Analog-to-
Digital Converters (ADC) ..................................................................................... 44
Finding 4: Technology Failures Typically Fall Into Four Categories, and
Mitigating Technology Failures Involves Holding Sufficient Spares
Inventory and Dedicated Physical Maintenance. .................................................. 48
Finding 5: Audio Latency Is Critical for Certain Elements of the
Recording Process ................................................................................................. 55
Finding 6: The Choice of Recording Sample Rate Is Based on a
Combination of Audio Fidelity and Workflow Impact. ........................................ 56
Finding 7: All of the Mixers Interviewed Had a Point of View and
Strategy Regarding Their Own Personal Equipment Upgrades and
Repairs. .................................................................................................................. 59

ix
Finding 8: Automation Is Not a Critical Consideration During the
Recording Phase of Score Production. .................................................................. 62
Discussion .............................................................................................................. 64
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 67
Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................ 69
Recommendation 1: Identify Knowledge Gaps in Operational Value to
Support Data Driven Decision Making in Significant Technology
Upgrades. ............................................................................................................... 69
Recommendation 2: Encourage Dialogue Between Management and
Operations About Critical Needs and Considerations From Both
Perspectives Required to Support Business Sustainability. ................................... 70
Recommendation 3: Plan and Deploy an Analog Mixing Console for a
Control Room Upgrade. ........................................................................................ 71
Cost Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 72
Interventions .......................................................................................................... 72
Mathematical Analysis .......................................................................................... 74
Cost-Benefit Analysis Results ............................................................................... 80
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 81
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................. 82
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 82
References ..................................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix A: Definitions ............................................................................................................... 94
Appendix B: Interview Protocol .................................................................................................... 96
Appendix C: Ethics ...................................................................................................................... 100

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Audio Network Technologies Matrix 16
Table 2: Findings 35
Table 3: Interventions, Ingredients, and Labor Costs 73
Table 4: Recording Revenues (Total Benefits) 76
Table 5: Analog Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor 77
Table 6: Digital Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor 77
Table 7: Control Surface Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor 78
Table 8: Hybrid Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor 78
Table 9: Benefit to Cost Ratio for Each Intervention 79
Table 10: Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 80

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Graph of Audio Channels Versus Time 13
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 26
Figure 3: Number of Mentions as “Preferred” by Mic. PRE Equipment Brand 45
Figure 4: Number of Mentions as “Preferred” by Converter Brand 49
Figure 5: Number of Mentions as “Preferred” by Technology 66

1
Examining Technology Obsolescence in Music Scoring Studios
There is evidence that the use of tools and technology by early hominids contributed to
survival and subsequent evolution for the current species of Homo sapiens that remains today
(Motes-Rodrigo et al., 2019). Very early use of technology was primarily for hunting, gathering,
and eventually farming by fashioning tools from available resources such as rocks, bone, wood,
and other natural materials. In the modern era, people use tools and technology in nearly every
aspect of life, not just for basic survival needs but also for the work performed as a productive
member of society. The natural cycle of technology use includes development, deployment,
improvement, and ultimately obsolescence (Mellal, 2020). Technology obsolescence is not only
an issue because the technology begins to fail as it becomes obsolete, but obsolescence may have
effects on business longevity as well as the lives of the people working in the business where the
technology is utilized. Technology obsolescence can contribute to a loss of market share,
employment attrition, business failure, or the closure of units or plants when leaders fail to make
timely decisions about upgrading technology (Amankwah-Amoah, 2015). Additionally, the costs
associated with delaying technology upgrades can be significant and can even surpass the costs
of replacing the technology (Romero Rojo, 2010).
This dissertation focuses on technology obsolescence in one particular industry: the
music scoring and postproduction branch of the media business (film, television, and streaming).
Context and Background of the Problem
The organization under study is a specific music recording studio on the west coast of the
United States dedicated to recording, mixing, and mastering music tracks for film, television, and
streaming content in production (new content, not previously released). The pseudonym of the
Studio will be used to identify this organization, and for the purposes of this study includes the

2
equipment required to do the work (recording), and the staff employed in any part of the
recording process (stakeholders). The stakeholders include staff members who operate the
equipment in the studio, but also include ancillary stakeholders including creative clients
(directors), composers, orchestrators, conductors, recording musicians, copyists, etc. The Studio
provides recording, sound editing, sound mixing, and mastering services, and as such, relies on
technology required to provide such services (e.g., audio boards, computers, wiring, etc.).
This study focuses on the problem of technology obsolescence, which can occur when the
studio equipment does not function as well as newer versions of the same product, and may also
occur when hardware or software is no longer available or supported by the original supply chain
(Cooper, 2004; Bartels et al., 2012). Currently, the Studio is operating with the same analog
technology that was implemented 15 years ago. Much of the existing technology is no longer
available for replacement or repair, and as sections of the studio begin to fail, the staff is faced
with working around these failures with no current options to repair or replace those components
for normal operation. As more areas of the Studio fail without possibility for repair, the Studio
will likely become difficult to use; clients may be unable to complete their recordings for the day
and may seek other more functional studios to complete their projects. In the modern age of
digital media production and distribution, many other production facilities have converted to
most or all digital audio and video. Currently, the Studio is faced with determining whether to
replace existing analog audio components and infrastructure with currently available (new)
analog components, or to transition to an entirely digital equivalent.
One benefit that digital technology affords creative clients is portability of the raw project
data, as well as reliable reproducibility and seemingly infinitely granular possibilities for making
changes at any and all stages of the creative process, whether intricately minute, or sweepingly

3
large. Much of the digital audio literature focuses on the role of digital audio in music piracy
(Cooper & Harrison, 2001), although some literature documents the role that digital audio plays
in music workflow efficiencies (Digital Audio Workstations, 2014). Historically in the analog
domain, if you wished to take your music from one studio to another, it would require making an
analog copy (tape-to-tape) and physically transporting the tape from one studio to the other. In
the modern digital age, transporting music from one studio to another is a matter of copying the
data onto a hard drive or transferring the data over the internet in its digital form.
In the analog domain, the historical equivalent to transporting audio over great distances
involved technologies such as Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) over telephone lines
(Newbury & Miller, 1999). The complications for this type of transport include channel
limitations as you can only transport very few channels at once (e.g., two), the transport must
happen in real time, and the cost for setting up and maintaining a service can be thousands of
dollars (Williams, n.d.). The benefit of digital transport is an exact reproducible copy of the
music on the receiving end, regardless of how many tracks are in the session. In the analog
domain, transportation was limited to 24 tracks on two-inch tape. In the digital domain,
transportation is virtually limitless. In order to mitigate some of the challenges with analog
transport, in the studio postproduction field, new technologies related to analog-to-digital
conversion and transmission have emerged, including Audio over IP (e.g., DANTE, AES67,
Audio Video Bridging [AVB]). Potential issues critical to consider include quality comparison,
infrastructure issues for transmission, and latency for analog-to-digital conversion. Latency is
particularly relevant as it can influence the efficacy of performing musicians during a live
recording session.

4
In addition to transportation to another facility, the workflow benefits of a digital project
are pronounced. In an analog facility, if you wished to recall a project for editorial or mix
updates, it would require an enormous amount of physical setup, patching the playback machine
to the audio console, recalling the audio console by turning every knob and pushing every button
to the last known position from the previous session. This work takes hours of preparation to
simply return the room to the last setting of the project before any additional work even begins.
With a digital audio workstation, especially one with a control surface attached, recalling a
session could take minutes instead of hours.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to gather feedback from sound mixers regarding the critical
needs and considerations for mitigating technology obsolescence at the Studio. Specifically, this
study seeks to learn more about these stakeholder’s perceptions regarding analog audio, digital
audio, audio quality, workflow flexibility, and how the Studio might balance these elements to
remain viable as a creative and business enterprise. The study will inform future decisions about
whether to purchase new analog equipment to replace failing equipment, or whether to transition
to a partial or entirely digital audio version of a recording studio.
This study is guided by the following research question: What are the perceptions of
sound mixers regarding the critical needs and considerations for mitigating technology
obsolescence related to audio equipment, quality, latency, and life span?
Importance of the Study
It is important to study the role and influence of technology obsolescence on market
share, as ignoring such problems may lead to prohibitive costs associated with managing
obsolescence (Sanborn, 2015). In addition, Amankwah-Amoah (2015) identified that four main

5
elements, “obsolescence, powerlessness, meaninglessness, and institutional linkages, interact to
contribute to business failure” (p. 1341). The current study at hand is the first step in identifying
causes, risks, and results of obsolete technology, in order to formulate a plan to stay current,
viable, and maintain market share for business longevity. As an expert in the field, it is critical to
keep current on what technology is becoming obsolete and in what way, otherwise it is
impossible to recommend an upgrade or replacement strategy “to make appropriate business
cases to support strategic management efforts” (Sandborn, 2015, p. 355).
The impact of failure in one part of a business-to-business network, such as a recording
studio providing services to a media production company, can be wide and long lasting, “where
negative outcomes cascade downstream and affect service recipients’ customers” (Zhu &
Zolkiewsky, 2015, p. 367). Studying and solving the problem of practice provides equitable
outcomes of employment retention for the film music recording community and the recording
industry at large. The following people will be helped by the work of this study: the stage staff,
the musicians who perform on the recordings, recording engineers, music dubbing mixers, music
editors, music copyists, and musician contractors. In addition, many other scoring recording
studios use the same analog technology as presented in this study. Once additional steps for
planning and deployment of a control room upgrade for the Studio are complete, the other
studios around the world may follow suit, providing stability, prosperity, and longevity for the
recording business for the next decade or more, reaching far into ancillary stakeholders and the
communities that they support.
The use of recording technology affects the stakeholders in their jobs each day.
Knowledge about technology usage, as well as other “digital skills such as information
processing, communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity and problem solving are

6
increasingly demanded in the labour market” (Novakova, 2020, p. 4). Workers often spawn
innovation, showing the importance of human capital on the labor market. The digital skills
described are what drive competitiveness in economies.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical lens used for this study is diffusion theory, originally defined and
documented by Everett Rogers (1995) as “the process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (Rogers, 1995, p. 5).
The phrase “communicated through certain channels” refers to the time at which adoption,
purchase, or deployment occurs when looking at a social group, large or small. Duretec and
Becker (2017) further describe the theory encompassing four distinct elements, as follows:
innovation as a new technology; communication channels, including pathways which connect the
group members with the new ideas; time, which measures the innovation’s adoption rate; and the
social system, in which the diffusion occurs. Basically, the theory presents an overview of when
certain people “buy in” to adopting an innovation or technology. The “certain channels” refers to
the time at which implementation or deployment occurs when looking at a social group, large or
small. The time segments are divided into groups labeled as innovators, early adopters, early
majority, late majority, and laggards. Using this lens will offer leadership a clearer picture about
the costs and benefits of occupying each position (leader, laggard, etc.) in the diffusion spectrum,
so they can modify policies, and capital planning cycles to remain competitive and viable to their
market share.
Diffusion theory is an appropriate theory to use while examining this problem of practice
as it describes and explains the decision-making process and behaviors for upgrading technology
critical to recording business operation. Tuck and Yang (2014) defined the theory of change as

7
referring “to a belief or perspective about how a situation can be adjusted, corrected, or
improved” (p. 13). The theory of change for this study will help inform key stakeholders about
optimal timing for upgrading the business technology by analyzing current and previous
implementation patterns as well as cost/revenue. Findings will offer a clearer picture about the
costs and benefits of occupying each position (leader, laggard, etc.) in the diffusion spectrum, so
they can modify policies, and capital planning cycles to remain competitive and viable to their
market share.
The research methodology for this study is primarily qualitative, although it also includes
employing some quantitative data collection to determine the participants’ preferences for analog
or digital recording technology. Following the qualitative phase of data collection, the researcher
will analyze the data to document the experience of the sample population, including the specific
technology identified.
Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to gather feedback from sound mixers regarding the critical
needs and considerations for mitigating technology obsolescence at the Studio. This section
offers a review of current and relevant literature to provide a view of the conversation that others
are having about the key concepts of the study. The literature review also includes detailed
descriptions of audio technologies pertaining to the project, the term and implications of
technology obsolescence, the concept of quality as it applies to audio technology, audio
resolution (sample rates), and audio latency in a live recording environment. The literature
review discusses technology obsolescence and emerging (new) technology in the creative work
of music recording. This section concludes with an examination of patterns and timing for

8
adoption of innovations and technology and the conceptual framework used to design the study,
built upon the diffusion of innovation theoretical framework.
Overview of Audio Recording Technology
While the term “technology” includes something that is man-made (un-natural), versus
something that is naturally occurring (Carroll, 2017), the current study includes audio
reproduction technologies specifically. These technologies include equipment and components
used in the process of reproducing audio signals, more specifically music as part of the mastered
audio track in a program designed for playback in a theater (film), on television, or on a modern
streaming platform, such as Hulu or Disney+ (Larkin, 2019). Production audio technologies
support three main phases: (a) preproduction, which includes idea development and initial
planning for production and postproduction; (b) production, including initial capture and
conversion from analog to digital; and (c) postproduction, including digital editing, mixing, and
generating a master version of the completed program. The primary technologies this dissertation
will investigate are part of the production and postproduction phase described previously.
Music reproduction, before recording technologies were available, only existed in a live
event in real time. Historically the process of music creation and reproduction began with a
composer creating a piece of music and writing it onto paper. An artist or artists then obtained
the written music, to play or sing the notes, reproducing the music in real time. The invention of
the phonograph by Thomas Edison in 1877 provided music the ability to be reproduced outside
of a live event, in a listener’s own environment (Coleman, 2005). Once sound reproduction was
possible, the process of expanding capabilities for capturing, editing, fixing, and duplicating
sound and music supported development of technologies to carry out each step of the process.

9
The key concepts under review include the tolerances of analog to digital converter
latency in recording applications, as well as quality tolerances for higher audio sampling rates.
Additional key concepts from diffusion theory include the decision-making process and timing
for when to adopt and deploy a specific technology. Deployment timing can additionally divide
into (a) the lifespan of a particular item; or (b) the adoption of the item into the studio’s
workflow. The technologies developed for production of music recordings include microphones,
mixing boards, recording media (e.g., wax discs, tape), dynamic and equalizing (EQ)
components, power amplifiers, speakers, and finally the myriad of cables to connect each
component together. Even before the development and use of analog-to-digital converters
(ADC), the entire audio capture-store-process-reproduce was in the analog domain, taking
vibrating air molecules, turning them into vibrating electrical signal using a microphone, and
back to vibrating air molecules again using speakers (Watkinson, 2002). A brief but relevant
overview follows of analog and digital audio components prone to failure from technology
obsolescence.
Analog and Digital Audio
Beginning with Edison and his invention of the phonograph, it has always been the goal
of recording technology to capture and faithfully reproduce those signals as closely to the
original, with minimal introduction of noise or distortion of any kind (Baert et al., 1992). An
analog signal such as sound, is generated by an oscillating source such as a string or a person’s
vocal cords, and transformed into equivalent electrical voltage oscillations; whereas digital audio
signals are strings of binary data that represents those oscillations, that can be stored, transmitted,
and converted back into analog oscillations for sound reproduction (Downes, 2010).

10
Analog is best described as a physical quantity which “is one that can assume any value
between its maximum and minimum limits” (Crecraft & Gergely, 2002, p. 156). The authors
compare analog audio to a digital signal which they describe as a signal “which is represented as
a series of numbers” (p. 156). Some of the shortcomings of analog audio are the dynamic range,
distortion, signal-to-noise ratio, frequency response originating in the physical analog
components in the entire signal chain. The limitations are many of the principal reasons that
manufacturers and artists turned to digital technologies for audio creation and reproduction
(Baert et al., 1992). Organizational leaders in businesses, like the Studio, periodically face
decisions regarding how to handle aging and failing analog technology while continuing to
provide audio services to their clients. These business decisions require knowledge of available
analog and digital audio technology, as well as knowledge and experience about how each part
of the audio studio interfaces with all other areas of the studio. This study aims to close the
knowledge gap, aggregate information, and collect data from stakeholders to solve the problem
of technology obsolescence at the Studio. While audio can exist in the analog or digital domain,
there are two main electrical components whose sole purpose is to convert audio from one
domain to the other: analog-to-digital or digital-to-analog converters.
Analog-to-Digital and Digital-to-Analog Conversion
All sound begins in the analog domain and must be converted into digital form through
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC). Once in the digital domain, the signal can be processed,
routed, transferred, for nearly unlimited distances. Historically, analog audio signals had
limitations of local analog components, but also had significant limitations to the distance it
could be carried due to signal loss of the transmission medium (copper wire). Once the digital
signal reaches the intended destination, it must be converted back to an analog audio signal via a

11
digital-to-analog converter (DAC) to reproduce sound pressure variations that humans can hear
as sound, speech, or music (Crecraft & Gergely, 2002). While there are several different formats
of digital audio, one very common format is pulse code modulation (PCM) which is found on
typical audio compact discs (CDs) that are playable in most consumer electronic CD players
(Downes, 2010). The author continues to describe PCM “in which the amplitude of the electrical
signal is measured periodically, or ‘sampled,’ and the value of the measurement is stored as a
binary number with a fixed number of bits—a process known as ‘quantization’” (Downes, 2010,
p. 313). Current PCM audio on audio CDs have two channels of audio designated as stereo,
while PCM audio found in computer audio file formats, such as Waveform Audio File Format
(.wav) which commonly has two channels of audio, but may contain multichannel audio, with
5.1 or 7.1 channels of audio being very common (Kabal, 2017). While WAV files provide a
means for encoding and transporting multichannel audio over a network for playback on
demand, there are other multichannel audio formats that provide real-time point to point
connection and transmission in production facilities.
Modern Digital Multichannel Formats (Point to Point)
Several very common multichannel digital audio formats related to the current study
include Multichannel Audio Digital Interface (MADI), Audio Engineering Society (AES-3),
Sony Phillips Digital Interface (S/PDIF), and Alesis Digital Audio Tape (ADAT). The principal
distinction in these digital formats is that they are “point to point” where two devices are
connected directly together with a specific type of cable, and the output of one device feeds the
input of another device. The benefits and economies of scale of digital audio formats begins by
starting with the two-channel (stereo) formats, AES-3 and S/PDIF. AES-3 specifies transmission
of two digital audio channels over a twisted pair of copper wire (Watkinson, 2002). S/PDIF also

12
specifies transmission of two digital audio channels in or out, on a single unbalanced pair of
copper wire, which “targets consumer and professional audio applications, including CD-R and
DVD recorders, home theater systems, automotive telematics, and digital audio workstations”
(“Single Chip,” 2002, p. 90).
The next major innovation in channel count began in 1991 when Alesis built the project
studio market with their ADAT format, transmitting eight channels of audio over inexpensive
form of fiber optic cable (“Numark,” 2001). The article continued that 10 years later, in 2001,
Alesis filed for bankruptcy, documenting a decade long life span of the technology, before it
became obsolete.
Moving from two channels to eight channels on a single transmission line (copper or
fiber optic), while technically is an exponential channel growth (2
3
), the channel growth with
MADI is even greater exponential growth (2
6
), transporting 64 channels of audio on a single
coaxial copper cable, or a single fiber-optic cable (Audio Engineering Society, 2020).
Figure 1 shows the progression of the number of audio channels carried on a single
transmission line on the Y-axis, plotted against emerging technologies and time on the X-axis.
The figure begins with one channel per transmission line in the analog domain. As we progress
to the right on the X-axis with emerging digital audio technologies, we see two channels per
transmission line with AES-3, then eight channels per transmission line with ADAT, and finally
64 channels per transmission line with MADI. Among the benefits of the format,
MADI provides up to 64 channels of audio transmitted down a single optical cable for
many miles without the need for repeaters; it is synchronous and has ‘near zero latency;’
and it delivers fully transparent audio distribution without any degradation of the audio
signal. (Grotticelli, 2010, p. 2)

13
Figure 1: Graph of Audio Channels Versus Time
Graph of Audio Channels Versus Time

Note. Graph shows exponential growth over time of the number of channels in a single
transmission line.

Higher performance metrics such as higher channel count, in light of similar
functionalities such as audio transmission from newer technologies, drives down the value of
older obsolescent technologies (Clavareau & Labeau, 2009). Following the development of
digital audio formats in point to point (direct) connections, the next step in the development of
digital audio formats includes Audio over Internet Protocol (AoIP).
Audio Over Internet Protocol (AoIP)
Once audio entered the digital domain, it became possible to transport the signal by
beaming it across the galaxy, much like how the Voyager satellites beam data collected about the

14
universe back to earth (“How,” 2000). Once the data is encapsulated, the limitation of
reproduction is then limited by the transport system. For point-to-point transport, the limitation
of distance is still a physical element, and is typically copper wire, or fiber optic. Fiber optic is
more tolerant of signal loss over distance, since point-to-point connections are dedicated to a
single purpose, the connection between devices over great distances can be very expensive. In
order to leverage existing infrastructure within a building, between buildings, and around the
world, the next logical implementation is AoIP. Rumsey (2021) described these benefits,
including “signals can be carried over large distances with relative ease, compared with other
means of audio interconnection … coupled with the possibility to expand capacity to handle
large numbers of high quality audio channels” (pp. 226–227). The inference here is that the
benefits not only extend to the distance you can transmit your audio, but in the digital domain,
there are real technologies that allow you to multiplex and encode many simultaneous channels
of audio to be decoded and converted to separate channels of audio on the receiving end. While
the beginning of radio and television broadcasts started with one, or two channels of audio
delivered to the end user, in the digital domain, and in the modern era of networking, the current
reality is we have the ability to transmit thousands of channels of audio over millions of miles,
all riding on currently available and functioning infrastructure “from two devices to millions or
billions” (Rumsey, 2021, p. 277). Holzinger and Hildebrand (2011) described the major
advantage of network audio versus audio point-to-point connections as flexibility: “An audio
signal transported over a network is available almost everywhere in the network. No re-routing
or re-plugging of cables is needed” (p. 1).
With AoIP, the implication of benefits for economies of scale comes from the realization
that the number of high-quality channels transmittable over great distances is no longer limited

15
by the number of physical connections between audio devices. With point-to-point digital
signals, if you wish to send a digital audio signal to a separate device, it requires a separate
physical connection (cabling), and some device to switch the connection to the other device.
Bouillot et al. (2009) described the benefits of AoIP as “networks allow much more flexibility.
Any piece of equipment plugged into the network is able to communicate with any other”
(Bouillot et al., 2009, p. 729). The ability to transmit thousands of channels over millions of
miles to billions of devices does not come without a cost. The cost in this sense, is what is
required in order to ensure that those channels arrive at the intended recipients in sync and as
high quality as possible. This cost is described as latency, or the time it takes for audio to be
reproduced on the receiving end of the transport. In a production environment, especially where
audio is being recorded, “low latency is an important requirement in audio. Sources of latency
include A/D and D/A converters…digital processing equipment, and network transport”
(Bouillot et al., 2009, p. 730). A table of the history of relevant network audio technologies is
presented in Table 1.
The selection of an appropriate digital audio format to use in a production environment
often comes from the selection of equipment used and installed in the studio. Manufacturers
often test, develop, and implement specific digital audio formats based on their own internal
research, and, for the purpose of this study, we will focus on a few options, which are either
currently supported by equipment already used in the studio, or are currently ratified, published,
and supported by audio standards bodies such as the AES. The Dante digital audio format carries
64 channels of audio at 48 kHz and 24 bits and is “found quite widely in live sound, house of
worship, installation and contracting applications” (Rumsey, 2021, p. 279). Dante is officially
supported with much of the modern hardware and digital audio workstation (DAW) currently

16
used in the Studio where this study is being conducted (“Pro Tools,” 2019). Audinate developed
and supports Dante as a patented media network technology “capable of delivering end-to-end
performance through a Digital Audio Workstation in the order of 3 milliseconds with a
synchronicity accuracy of 1 microsecond” (Walsh, 2011, p. 4). In a recording environment, it is
desirable to have any latency to be as low as possible, whether from ADC-DAC converters or
from transmission such as across a network. Dante utilizes network quality of service (QoS) to
ensure that audio data and synchronization data, which is time critical, take priority for delivery,
over other non-time-critical data (Walsh, 2011).

Table 1: Audio Network Technologies Matrix
Audio Network Technologies Matrix
Technology Communication Topology Network
capacity
Latency Max sample
rate
Dante IP Any L2 or IP 700 channels 84 µs min. 192 kHz
AES 67 IP Any L3 or IP Unlimited 125 µs - 4 ms 96 kHz
Audio Video
Bridging
(AVB)
IP Any L3 or IP 256 2 ms 192 kHz

Note. Adapted from “Best Practices in Network Audio” by N. Bouillot, E. Cohen, J. R.
Cooperstock, A. Floros, N. Fonseca, R. Foss, M. Goodman, J. Grant, K. Gross, S. Harris, B.
Harshbarger, J. Heyraud, L. Jonsson, J. Narus, M. Page, T. Snook, A. Tanaka, J. Trieger, & U.
Zanghieri, 2009, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 57(9), 729–741,
[http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14839]

17
AES67 is another AoIP format that supports up to eight audio channels per network
stream at 48 kHz and 24 bits, and the standard places no limitation on the number of streams,
with sample accurate synchronization (Rumsey, 2017). The author described the relationship
between audio samples, network packets, and latency: “The number of samples in a packet is a
compromise between low-latency and software-based systems (e.g., PC based) being able to
participate in the standard. 192 samples per packet at 48-kHz sampling rate therefore results in 4
ms latency” (Rumsey, 2017, p. 148). Similar to Dante, AES67 has a provision for using QoS on
networks with other non-real-time traffic. One limitation of AES67 is the supported sampling
frequency. Dante supports up to 192 kHz, whereas AES67 only supports up to 96 kHz sampling
rate (Audio Engineering Society, 2018).
AVB was developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) as a
set of networking protocols where devices on the network are “talkers” or “listeners” or both
(Rumsey, 2021). Some of the benefits of AVB are high channel count of 128 or more, support
for 192 kHz sample rate, including the possibility that separate streams may be at different
sample rates. Rumsey (2021) described how latency across a network is also minimized by the
fact that “other network activity doesn’t disturb AVB audio. It reserves bandwidth for its needs”
(p. 279). One method for such performance guarantees is the restriction that “AVB traffic cannot
be routed across subnets and cannot cross AVB domain boundaries dictated by the availability of
AVB-enabled network equipment” (Holzinger & Hildebrand, 2011, p. 5). The authors compared
this to the RAVENNA audio format, which requires more stringent QoS performance, but
provides more flexibility to span subnets in layer-3 routing. Newly emerging technologies
presented provide a mitigating strategy when older, less functional technologies become

18
obsolescent. Production companies continually face the realities of mitigating technology
obsolescence in an effort to survive.
Audio Latency
Whenever considering any type of analog to digital conversion (and back again),
especially in audio, it takes time to perform the conversion in both directions. The delay in audio
from the source to the destination as it is converted from analog to digital, and then digital to
analog is called latency. In most applications, latency is not noticeable, or at the very least is
tolerable. In applications where conversion is part of the immediate environment such as hearing
aids, or in a recording studio, latency is a critical factor, where processing delays in excess of 20
ms may cause significant discomfort to listeners (Magron & Virtanen, 2020).
Mitigating Technology Obsolescence
This section expands on the definition of technology obsolescence, including typologies,
consequences, and replacement strategies, in an effort to mitigate the risks associated with
obsolete technology. It is important to distinguish between technology that simply fails to
function, but is available to be replaced, and technology that fails, is not available to replace, and
will not be so in the foreseeable future (Clavareau & Labeau, 2009). The distinction and more
granular definition of obsolete technology is presented in the following.
Expanded Description
Varying types of technology have been around since the earliest evidence of hominids
(Ollé et al., 2017). Our ancestors used early forms of tools and technology to create and cut items
in an effort to survive. It is easy to see the plethora of technology all around us in the modern era,
some used for survival, some used for connecting, exploring, and communicating (Ollé et al.,
2017). The concept of obsolescence should be included in the language of describing technology,

19
as a part of exploring a product’s design, manufacturing, use, and innovation. Even if the
technology is still in perfect working order, it may become obsolete from an economic point of
view when “an asset may lose its usefulness by being considered outdated, even at the whim of
modern fashion or technical advancements” (Schochetman & Smith, 2007, p. 485). It is also
useful to draw a distinction between technology that is obsolete, indicating it is no longer
available, and obsolescent, meaning it will be no longer available nor useful at some time in the
future. A product enters the obsolescence portion of its life cycle at the moment that another item
enters the market with the same features and functionality. It is higher performance metrics in
light of similar functionalities from newer technologies that drives down value of older
obsolescent technologies (Clavareau & Labeau, 2009). Mellal (2020) presented the term
obsolete, as clarified by several technical standards such as ANFOR NF X60-12:2006, to mean
that an item is no longer used, as opposed to simply no longer available. The distinction between
no longer used versus available is critical for companies faced with failing equipment, and their
options for replacing or upgrading. Especially when considering replacing obsolete equipment,
factors such as availability play a direct role in whether that company purchases a direct
replacement, purchases a comparable replacement, and what the cost may be for both options.
Running and maintaining a business includes the procurement, maintenance, retirement,
and replacement of technology. This process is often referred to as a product life cycle and its
place in organizational structures, including product manuals, training efforts, scheduled reviews,
and other technology supporting its use (Ginn, 2006). This cycle exists in the product’s life span
itself in the marketplace, and also exists as a cycle to the customer, beginning when they
originally purchase the equipment and ending when the equipment is removed or replaced. One
of the factors in the end of both versions of these cycles is obsolescence. Romero Rojo et al.

20
(2010) define obsolescence as when “[a] component becomes obsolete when the technology that
defines it is no longer implemented and therefore the component becomes no longer available
from stock of own spares, procurable or produced by its supplier or manufacturer” (p. 1235). In
this way, the worst-case scenario is such that the exact same model of technology (computer,
switch, audio board, etc.) is no longer available anywhere. As such, the next “rotation” of the life
cycle would include a newer model or version of the technology being replaced.
The process of procuring and deploying replacement technology garners a certain amount
of risk, and modern research in product life cycles and obsolescence is intended to help mitigate
some of the risks (Duretec & Becker, 2017). In terms of specific financial risk, Romero Rojo
(2010) noted that obsolescence issues cost the U.S. Navy up to $750 million per year. Some of
the financial risks not only include initial capital outlay, but also includes financial commitment
for training, changes in infrastructure when deploying the new technology, and additional
support costs for using replacement equipment. In addition to mitigating financial risk,
companies also tend to maintain their competitive advantage by being leaders in strategies for
seeking technology (Smeets & Bosker, 2011).
Obsolescence Typologies
Obsolescence is organized into five main groups or types, including categorizing it as
involuntary or voluntary (Mellal, 2020; Amankwah-Amoah, 2016). The five types are:
technology obsolescence, functional obsolescence, planned obsolescence, style (or
psychological) obsolescence, and finally optional obsolescence. Beginning with technology
obsolescence, devaluation comes from the natural progress of technology, not necessarily from
physical wear and tear. When a new product comes on to the market and replaces an older
version, even if the older model still functions, replacing technical obsolescence occurs when it

21
is economically feasible. Several examples of this type include an automated device replacing a
manual device, and a smart device replacing an automated device. While technological
obsolescence can be attributed to the manufacturer’s product life span, it also relates to supply
method (rental or sale), market structure, and behavior of the customer (Cooper, 2004). A study
of 802 consumers found that they felt like video equipment should last an average of 10 years,
when in reality, was discarded in disrepair after 7 years (Cooper, 2004). The study also found
that respondents felt like audio devices should last an average of 8 years, when in reality they
were discarded in disrepair after 5 years.
Zheng (2011) described functional obsolescence as the primary function of the device
degrades or becomes insufficient throughout the course of its natural life cycle. An example of
this type is the cell phone, where new features in modern phones make older ones obsolete, such
that consumers are less likely to purchase or use older phones. Planned obsolescence is more of
an intentional version of functional obsolescence with
the objective to generate short- and medium-term significant volume of sales by reducing
the time between repeat purchases. An example would be the production of a device
deliberately designed so that in the next 3 to 5 years, obsolescence will push consumers
to “inevitably” replace the product. (Mellal, 2020, p. 2)
Manufacturers often drive this type of obsolescence in their development and production
schedule. One reason companies may do this is to drive medium and/or short-term sales volume
by compressing the time between customer purchases. One very familiar example of this type is
designing devices which become much slower or less responsive with time, so that in 2 to 3 short
years, customers are much more willing to upgrade their device (Amankwah-Amoah, 2016).

22
Style (or psychological) obsolescence occurs when a piece of technology has lost its
value because it physically represents a device that is no longer in fashion, that device becomes
obsolete. Flip style cell phones or BlackBerry-type devices are a good example of this type of
style obsolescence. Also clothing patterns, colors, and style represent a specific example of style
obsolescence (Josias, 2009).
The fifth and final style is called optional obsolescence. This type occurs when a
manufacturer intentionally fails to implement a technological improvement into a product, even
though they could do so. Intentionally producing a less-than-functional device may lead to a
much less expensive product, but still fall in this type of obsolescence, as it is specifically built
and produced to be less functional (Devereaux, 2010).
Consequence of Obsolescence
The literature describes the consequences of obsolescence as correlating to various types
of risk. These industrial risks are categorized as: safety (specifically accidents in power and
petroleum-processing plants), quality (reduced in manufacturing), costs and efficiency (increased
cost for maintenance while lowering efficiency in the renewable energy sector), stoppages
(unexpected in production industries), components (prematurely outdated elements in the design
phase), and waste increase in all sectors (Borgonovo et al., 2000; Sun & Xi, 2011; Jacobsson,
2018). One principal consequence of obsolescence is the risk that it will occur, and is “evaluated
as a rate of risk according to the probability of occurrence of new technology (frequency) and the
impact of this new technology” (Mellal, 2020, p. 2). Additional consequences include the
necessity for unplanned capital expenditure for system recertification and requalification which
may be prohibitively high (Sandborn, 2015). The author found that, in addition to financial cost,
skills obsolescence is a consequence of technology obsolescence as “insufficient current skill

23
competences, which requires identification, training and retraining workforce to fill current and
expected future skill needs” (Sandborn, 2015, p. 353). Once an organization identifies a
component or system that is obsolete, mitigating the risks identified previously involves
replacing the part or system with a more contemporary or modern version.
Replacement Strategies
Replacement strategies seem simple enough, until faced with the reality that replacement
parts may either be unavailable, or only available at a higher cost. Additional strategies outlined
in the literature also involve two major tracks for replacement: replacing a single component or
replacing multiple components. Schochetman and Smith (2007) proposed a strategy of
replacement based on an assumed number of generations of the part, as well as the cost for
replacement. Dogramaci and Fraiman (2004) addressed the larger picture of an entire machine
(involving multiple components), how it should be maintained, and even explored the
possibilities and timing parameters of replacing the machine with another, possibly newer
technology. The authors identified probability distributions for breakdowns and deterioration
which would help indicate the time to perform such maintenance and/or replacement. They also
proposed an algorithm to consider based on a specific time segmentation, and they used repair
costs and revenues to formulate an objective procedure to determine precisely when a component
should be replaced.
One such replacement strategy is replacement based on the layered model, such as the IP
network layer model. In the layered model, variations and improvements can be implemented at
various layers and likely independent from the other layers (Walsh, 2011). One example of this
type of benefit is that

24
a 10Mbps device from 1994 can still be plugged into the fastest switch of 2011, and still
pass data as if it were brand new. … This allows for organic evolution rather than costly
and bloody, continual revolution, when equipment is deemed to be obsolete. (Walsh,
2011, p. 2)
When infrastructure such as cabling needs to be replaced as a part of an upgrade or
change, labor cost and inconvenience from outages during the work are some of the largest cost
liabilities during any major system maintenance. The layered model enables organizations to
upgrade technologies at either ends of the cables without significant service interruption. When
considering designing replacement strategies and positioning a system in a manner which can
survive technology changes with minimal interruption due to obsolescence, these features
become more essential for business survival.
Conceptual Framework
When designing and presenting a study of the role that technology obsolescence plays in
business failure, it is useful to use a visual or conceptual model for the audience to visualize what
the researcher plans to study (Maxwell, 2013). While a theoretical framework provides a
foundation of existing theory, a conceptual framework contains “the researcher’s understanding
of how the research problem will best be explored, the specific direction the research will have to
take, and the relationship between the different variables in the study” (Osanloo & Grant, 2014,
pp. 16–17). The authors claim that there should be alignment between the theoretical and
conceptual frameworks. Diffusion theory, as originally developed by Rogers (1995), is the
theoretical framework used to build the conceptual framework for this qualitative research study.
Figure 2 is a visual representation of the conceptual framework for this qualitative study
and provides a visual aid for the current time frame for obsolete technology replacement.

25
The timing for when to adopt, change, implement, or replace an obsolete technology plays a
significant role in the success or failure of any venture (Amankwah-Amoah, 2015). Diffusion
theory can be visualized as a spectrum on a two-dimensional cartesian coordinate plot. The graph
resembles a typical “bell curve” shape with five segments of the group under study attributed to
five percentage ranges of innovation adoption in the population. The five segments are
innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers, 1995). The key
concept of technology obsolescence plays a direct role in placement of our sample on the X-axis
of the diffusion graph. Starting from the far left, the stakeholders (e.g., the Studio leadership)
decide to enter the market by purchasing/deploying technology very early in its product life
cycle.
If the stakeholders wait until the product is more obsolescent toward the end of its
product life cycle, they would end up on the right side of the diffusion graph and would be
considered late adopters or laggards. At the end of a product life cycle, a business may enjoy the
benefits of reduced cost and higher reliability due to more time in the “wild” leading to revisions
and updates based on feedback from other customer usage. However, obsolescence implies that
spares, replacement parts, and official service/support may be unavailable or short lived. The
total lifespan of a product put in service toward the end of its product life cycle may be severely
reduced, due in part by it (and/or its components) being obsolete. This study will gather data
from stakeholders to learn about their perceptions regarding when and how to deploy
replacement technology.

26
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework
Conceptual Framework

Note: Images from “Slide Talk” (2012) and Matinaro and Liu (2015)

The X-axis of the figure is an indication of time, correlating to the release of a specific
technology in the marketplace, or the point of adoption/deployment of that technology at a
specific company. The Y-axis represents the adoption level and the percentage of the market that
has adopted the innovation or technology. The current study focuses on the lifespan of the
predominant audio transmission technology (analog versus digital) as well as the audio mixing
console in the Studio. The adoption level curve also corresponds to the technology obsolescence
risk. These risks include spontaneous failure and inability to obtain replacement parts, service, or
support (Romero Rojo, et al., 2010), The optimal time for adoption is related to several factors
including market share, financial considerations, and tolerance for change.

27
Methodology
This section focuses on the methodology used in this research study to discover the
factors contributing to decision making about equipment maintenance and replacement in music
recording studios at film/TV postproduction facilities. The section will include this introduction
followed by the research questions aligning to the study’s stated purpose. Following is an
overview of the methodological design, a description of the research setting, a brief description
of the researcher, and an explanation of the data sources. The section concludes with a discussion
of how this study maximizes validity and reliability, and finally limitations of the study.
Research Question
The research question for this study is as follows: What are the perceptions of sound
mixers regarding the critical needs and considerations for mitigating technology obsolescence
related to audio equipment, quality, latency, and life span?
Overview of Design
The research design for this study was primarily a qualitative methods design. The
researcher collected data via interviews asking both open-ended and close-ended questions about
participant’s history of purchasing technology, as well as their experience with technology
failure and obsolete technology.
Research Setting
This study took place within a postproduction facility located in Southern California. The
facility employs approximately 200 staff including 20 full-time staff, and 180 ancillary (part-
time) staff, including scoring mixers, musicians, orchestrators, contractors, conductors, and
copyists. The focus of this study included primarily the scoring mixers.

28
The Researcher
As the researcher, I have worked in music, recording, and postproduction for 23 years as
a cellist, recording engineer, and maintenance engineer at several of the largest and most prolific
studios in the world. With several decades of experience in front of the microphone (as a
recording musician) and behind the microphone (as an engineer), I am very familiar with the
causes, implications, and effects of technology obsolescence on performance efficacy as well as
business viability.
The paradigm of inquiry which most aligns my positionality with the problem presented
is post/neo-positivism. Aliyu, et al. (2015) noted that a research paradigm is more than a set of
beliefs and includes “the nature of the ‘world’, and the individual’s place in it.” (p. 3). This
philosophical worldview incorporates the notion that there is a logical relationship between
factors. For example, a failed boot drive would prevent a computer from starting up. Post/neo-
positivism informs my lens by its epistemology that good inquiry results can lead to the
conclusion and knowledge which is likely to be true. In this sense, a strong correlation can be
tested for technology obsolescence leading to business failure. Post/neopositivism is related to
my positionality through my responsibility for observing operational efficiencies and equipment
functionality to determine the optimal timing for upgrading or replacing the studio equipment.
An additional paradigm of inquiry I am using to frame the problem of practice is
pragmatism. Creswell and Creswell (2018) describe that pragmatism “as a worldview arises out
of actions, situations, and consequences rather than antecedent conditions (as in post positivism)”
(p. 9). There is an element of freedom in pragmatism, where the researcher is free to use their
purposes and needs to inform choices on procedures, techniques, and methods of study (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). The authors continue to describe pragmatism as often using mixed methods

29
of inquiry (both quantitative and qualitative) and focusing on which method reveals the version
of the truth relevant at that time.
Data Sources
My data sources included interviews comprised of both open-ended and closed-ended
questions.
Interviews
The primary inquiry method was the interview. This method provided an open
conversation about the experience of the subjects to gather relevant data about the point of view
of the subjects in relation to the guiding research question. The interview included both open-
ended qualitative questions and close-ended quantitative questions.
Participants
Participants of this study were sound mixers who are members of the technical staff in
direct contact with daily operations of the Studio, a media postproduction facility. The
participants perform the work at the Studio and/or perform the work in their own studio space.
The sample selection was non-probability purposive sampling as these participants align most
closely with providing valid and reliable data to answer my research question. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) described this sampling method as “based on the assumption the investigator
wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which
the most can be learned” (p. 96). Maxwell (2013) described several goals for purposive
sampling, which align with the aims of this research study. The goals of purposive sampling
include, first, “achieving representativeness or typicality of the settings, individuals, or activities
selected”; second, “deliberately select[ing] select individuals or cases that are critical for testing
the theories that you began the study with, or that you have subsequently developed”; and

30
“select[ing] groups or participants with whom you can establish the most productive
relationships, ones that will best enable you to answer your research questions.” (Maxwell, 2013,
pp. 98–99).
Fifteen interview subjects participated in the study and were recruited from the Studio. I
recruited people from recent and/or upcoming recording sessions, by explaining the purpose of
the study, and gathering a list of names of those willing to participate in an interview. The
sample was selected due to the extensive knowledge they had of the context of the study
(Maxwell, 2013). I then contacted the willing participants by email to schedule the interview,
and either conducted the interviews live (in person), or via Zoom. The sample size as well as
purposeful sampling will ensure credibility of the qualitative data as well as validity of the
quantitative data.
Instrumentation
My interview protocol was overall semistructured, including both closed-ended type
questions as well as open-ended questions allowing for more varied responses and an
opportunity to dig deeper into the subjects’ responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Semistructured
interviews include some structured questions, flexibility in all questions, respondents providing
specific data in their responses, but does not necessarily have a predetermined order or wording
for the questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The interview protocol included 17 closed-ended questions. The remaining questions
were 24 open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions related to the research question and
the conceptual framework (technology obsolescence). The open-ended questions provided data
for the research question as well as the key concepts related to audio quality and upgrade timing.
A combined approach of having both closed and open-ended questions “that offer the persons

31
being interviewed the opportunity to respond in their own words and to express their own
personal perspectives” (Patton, 2002, p. 348). This combined approach provided more rich and
meaningful data for this project.
Data Collection Procedures
Data was collected in interviews via notes taken by hand, as well as an audio recorder to
capture the responses in real time. The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim for use and
analysis at a later time. Each interview took between 45 and 60 minutes to conduct, although if
the subject remained willing, the interview lasted longer, until all the questions were answered,
and/or the subject had nothing further to contribute. Interviews were conducted using Zoom, or
in person.
Trustworthy data collection using a recording device was ensured by selecting, and
testing the device, transfer, transcription, and storage prior to the actual interview. Transcription
was performed in two stages: stage one is an initial transcription using a currently available
service (e.g., live transcription on Zoom). Stage two was the researcher verifying the transcript is
accurate by listening to the audio recording and verifying the transcribed text is correct, making
corrections as required. By transcribing and correcting on my own, the researcher heard the
interview several times, to “become more intimately acquainted with their utterances”
(Burkholder, et al., 2019).
Data Analysis
The data analysis portion of this project began during the data collection phase, as with
qualitative research there is little separation between the data collection and data analysis (Gibbs,
2018). Ravitch and Carl (2019) described the framing notions for data analysis in qualitative
research as iterative, recursive, formative, summative, requiring triangulation, and seeking out

32
alternative perspectives. The qualitative data in this study was in the form of text from interviews
which were transcribed. The researcher used inductive reasoning and logic, as the analysis took a
collection of many particular but similar circumstances to generate a more general explanation
based on the data (Gibbs, 2018). Transcripts were originally generated using the transcribe
feature built into the Zoom application, and then the researcher listened to the recordings and
corrected any errors or omissions from the transcripts after the second pass. The researcher
generated and corrected the transcripts himself instead of employing an outside transcription
service, as “there are advantages to doing your own transcription. Most importantly, it gives you
a chance to start the data analysis” (Gibbs, 2018, p. 23).
The formal analysis was performed by coding the interview transcripts using available
software (Atlas.ti), and further organized using Microsoft Excel in the form of tables. These
tables were used to facilitate cross-case comparisons (Gibbs, 2018). The researcher used these
tools, “including the iterative and recursive nature of the qualitative research cycle of study and
formative data analysis, which are vital to rigorous qualitative research studies” (Ravitch & Carl,
2019, p. 235). Gibbs (2018) described this process as follows:
Coding is how you define what the data you are analyzing are about. It involves
identifying and recording one or more passages of text of other data items such as the
parts of pictures that, in some sense, exemplify the same theoretical or descriptive idea.
(p. 54)
Coding and analysis are less about descriptions from the respondents and more on a
categorical, theoretical, and analytical level. Gibbs (2018) explained in more detail: “You need to
move away from codes that are simply descriptive and couched in the respondent’s views of the
world to codes that suggest new, theoretical, or analytical ways of explaining the data” (p. 73).

33
As the data was grouped or coded to specific features, differences, and commonalities, the
researcher continued to compare notes and categories to determine themes and preliminary
findings (Ravitch & Carl, 2019). Merriam and Tisdell (2015) explained the value of coding as
“nothing more than assigning some sort of shorthand designation to various aspects of your data
so that you can easily retrieve specific pieces of the data” (p. 199). Once the initial coding was
complete, the researcher continued to group responses into larger concepts or codes, which led to
the findings that will be presented shortly.
Anonymity and confidentiality are important, as this document and research will be
publicly available so other researchers have access to it (Gibbs, 2018). For anonymization,
names of the interview subjects were kept confidential and known only to the researcher. For
purposes of reference in this document, each interview subject was given a randomly assigned
designation, for example, M9, representing the ninth scoring mixer analyzed in the study.
Validity and Reliability
Validity, reliability, and ethics are a primary concern in not only qualitative research
methods, but “all research is concerned with producing valid and reliable knowledge in an
ethical manner. Being able to trust research results is especially important to professionals in
applied fields because practitioners intervene in people’s lives” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.
237). Special attention should be taken to gathering valid, reliable, and ethical data collection in
an effort to establish and maintain trustworthiness of the study. As such, the researcher used
specific strategies to ensure credibility and trustworthiness of the findings from the qualitative
interviews.
The three strategies to ensure data validity, reliability, and ethical collection are (a)
triangulation; (b) respondent validation to verify internal validity; and (c) the researcher’s

34
position or reflexivity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation came from multiple sources of
data including “interview data collected from people with different perspectives” (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 245). The various perspectives of my subjects come from the reality that the
subjects do their work at many different facilities in the local area. While the stakeholders
(scoring mixers) do very similar types of work, their experience is very different at other
facilities, which is exactly the type of perspective that yielded valid and reliable data for the
study. Respondent validation was conducted by soliciting feedback from some of my interview
subjects to evaluate the preliminary or emerging findings of the study to that point. The
researcher then decided if course correction was required on the initial data collection (i.e.,
clarification/correction) or if the initial analysis required correction. The researcher’s position or
reflexivity was used to explain the researcher’s “biases, dispositions, and assumptions regarding
the research to be undertaken” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 249). This is particularly critical, as
the data collected will be used to design a significant change initiative for the researcher’s
organization to be presented to management to decide on whether or not to execute the initiative.
Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the critical needs and considerations of actively
working scoring mixers and recommend solutions to make better decisions about mitigating risks
associated with technology obsolescence. Diffusion theory served as the theoretical framework
for this study by focusing on when to adopt or change obsolete technology and implementing
effective interventions. This section begins with an overview of the findings in general and is
guided by the following research question: What are the perceptions of sound mixers regarding
the critical needs and considerations for mitigating technology obsolescence related to audio
equipment, quality, latency, and life span?

35
In general, there were eight main findings related to the perceptions of scoring mixers as
explained in Table 2.

Table 2: Findings
Findings
Finding Description Related to
1 Analog technology is the preferred technology (over entirely
digital) for the audio console in a score tracking session.
Audio equipment
Quality
Latency

2 Multitrack bussing is no longer required, but stem separation
is required and wider than any previous time in the history
of music recording.

Audio equipment
Life span
3 There are two brands of microphone preamplifiers and one
brand of analog to digital converters that were mentioned
as “preferred” more often than most other brands
mentioned.

Audio equipment
Quality
4 Technology failures typically fall into four categories, and
mitigating technology failures involves holding sufficient
spares inventory and dedicated physical maintenance.

Quality
Life span
5 Audio latency is critical for certain elements of the recording
process.

Latency
6 The choice of recording sample rate is based on a
combination of audio fidelity and workflow impact.

Audio equipment
Quality
7 All of the mixers interviewed had a point of view and strategy
regarding their own personal equipment upgrades and
repairs.

Audio equipment
Life span
8 Automation is not a critical consideration during the recording
phase of score production.
Audio equipment

36
Description of Findings
The following sections provide additional detail regarding each of the study’s findings.
Finding 1: Analog Is the Preferred Console Type for Score Recording
The primary finding of this study is that, overall, analog technology is the preferred audio
format for audio tracking on a music scoring stage. Producing a musical audio track for film,
television, or streaming media involves two primary phases. The first phase is recording, and the
second phase is postproduction (editing and mixing/mastering). This study focuses on the
recording phase of the process, and this section will detail the responses from the interview
subjects. The responses focused on technology preference, perception of value, and the influence
of the learning curve.
Analog or Hybrid Consoles
The two phases of music production (recording and postproduction) involve the two
primary audio mixing console types (analog, and digital) and a third, hybrid console type, which
includes elements of both analog and digital. Ninety-three percent of the respondents (N = 15) in
this study lump a control surface in as a digital console, and while no digital audio passes
through the control surface, it has the look and feel of a digital audio mixing console. The
primary difference between an analog and digital (or control surface) console is the feature to
bank or page sections of channels to other lower layers in the console layout. This feature is
helpful in postproduction, but during tracking, this feature may add confusion to an already
chaotic situation. It is for this reason that in the tracking phase of score recording, 93% of the
respondents indicated they preferred either pure analog or a hybrid console including both analog
and digital technology. Only one mixer, M5, indicated, “I’d rather have a control surface, but

37
there are no scoring stages with them.” This mixer also noted that the recording studio where he
works has several recording rooms with a control surface only.
The remaining interviewees fell into the following two groups for the console technology
they preferred: (a) entirely analog; or (b) a hybrid of part analog console and part digital
(including control surface). As such, 53% of the sample preferred entirely analog consoles for
tracking, and 40% preferred a hybrid option. The two main reasons for this preference were
audio quality and the effect on workflow. Effect on workflow is significant because during the
recording session, the technology needs to facilitate the success of the recording and not become
a hindrance or liability. Even for those score mixers who responded that a hybrid workflow was
preferred, analog audio would always be a significant factor in the signal chain and recording
technology for a scoring environment. Given this reality, most of the clients interviewed
expected to include and interact with analog audio technology in their recording work.
The mixers who preferred an entirely analog console responded that the primary reasons
for this were that analog consoles sounded better than a digital counterpart, and typically were
laid out with everything in front of them. M3 spoke about sonic quality by mentioning, “The
sound of the analog console…they just sound better than most digital boards.” Another
respondent, M8, stated about analog sonic quality and console layout,
that has to do with …the sound of it. I think you have everything that you need available
in front of you. And what’s good about that is that when you are mixing [tracking] you
try to follow the conductor the same way a cellist would in the orchestra. I think an
analog work surface allows you to work like that.
Respondent M11 mentioned, “on a tracking date, I care about one in one out, separating
my tracks. I care about the sound of the board.”

38
Digital Consoles
The mixers mentioned concerns that an all-digital workflow coupled with how the control
surface functions could slow the recording session down, hindering the workflow. M15
responded about this, “When you’re in a live situation, like when you are tracking, you don’t
want to be flipping banks and flipping pages…having everything laid out is very important.” M8
also mentioned workflow advantages of analog including, “Everything that you need available is
in front of you. There’s no menus, there’s no multibutton pushing, you don’t have to dig through
menus, so it’s instant.” One of the reasons that the respondents can speak about concerns with
workflow and slowing a session down is that most of them have had some experience in a
tracking session entirely on a control surface.
Ninety-three percent of the mixers indicated that they had personal experience operating
a digital console and/or control surface in a tracking session and described operating a tracking
recording session with a digital console, including a control surface as clumsy, difficult,
cumbersome, awkward, and stressful. M3 noted, when tracking on a control surface, “trying to
do things quickly can be difficult. If you have time to set up layouts and things like that, the
problem is rarely do you have that kind of time.” M7 described the difficulty as
It’s very cumbersome, very stressful. It requires me to pay more attention to Pro Tools
than to the music, and that’s problematic for me. It takes my mind out of being able to
focus on the music and it makes it about controlling Pro Tools.
Other difficulties include changes in set-up time and problems when changes come up
during the recording session. “It requires more setup time, and it requires you to consider what
possible scenarios are going to come at you. U-turns in a session are much more difficult,” stated
M8. One mixer, M9, described his experience tracking with a control surface as “Yeah, it’s

39
horrible. I’ve done it many times and places, and it’s a really frustrating process from my point
of view as a mixer.”
Learning Curve
One additional effect on the workflow is the learning curve on operating an unfamiliar
console. Many respondents indicated that a steep learning curve is a significant barrier to
integrating a digital console onto a scoring stage. When reflecting on digital console options, M1
commented: “The learning curve on those things is steep. Those things are not user-friendly.
They are complicated to set up, and they’re complicated to operate.” Another mixer, M3,
responded with the challenge of stepping into a recording session with a console with which they
may not be familiar, “If you walk into a studio with a digital board and you’re unfamiliar with
exactly that make and model of console, you are at a loss.” Additionally, the majority of the
sample (87%) had more than 20 years of professional mixing experience. With that much time
operating in a specific way, participants felt it would be particularly challenging to take on a new
approach. M8 mentioned, “My apprehension would be learning the new workflow after having
done the workflow for 30 years.” An additional contributor to the challenge of a steep learning
curve is the reality that most scoring stages host different scoring mixers each day. M13
articulated as follows that it was not necessarily practical to tackle the learning curve:
For having guest mixers come in every day, and different people use the console, how
steep is the learning curve? And how easy is it going to be for people to get used to that
console? And the answer is, with a lot of these boards, it maybe not practical at this point.
Perception of Value
One additional reason for preferring an analog console is the perception of value for the
work performed, and by extension, value of the staff performing the work. Analog consoles for

40
scoring stages tend to be much larger in length and depth than digital counterparts, and a larger
console contributes to a sense of value for the space. In terms of higher perceived value, M11
noted, “It makes the composer look good. It makes the director look good.” Another respondent,
M12, spoke specifically about the perceived value of digital equipment itself, as well as the fact
that it is often tied to a specific DAW and not functional as a stand-alone unit, as follows:
you spend a lot of money for a controller that is arguably worthless in 5 years, and that’s
a terrible investment of equipment and it kind of bothers me as far as you’re locked into
this system that has no future.
Finding 2: Multitrack Bussing Not Preferred, and Stem Flexibility Is Critical
Participants shared that multitrack bussing was far more prevalent, useful, and required in
the days where record tracks were limited; in the modern era of nearly unlimited record tracks,
multitrack bussing is no longer a requirement, and may even introduce technical issues and
failures during a recording session. While many scoring mixers indicated that it was good to
have multitrack bussing as an option, most indicated they did not use it at all, and found it
troublesome at best. Bussing and stems are grouped together in this finding, as both involve the
function of outputting the signal to either type of destination.
Multitrack Bussing
Multitrack bussing is a feature that emerged during the time when there were not as many
analog record tracks as microphones. So, the mixer would combine several microphone channels
to a common buss, which would then be routed to a record track. While this feature is a staple on
all analog scoring consoles, it also requires additional hardware, switches, and other components
that are troublesome when they fail during a tracking session.

41
While some respondents indicated it would be “nice” to have the feature available, 67%
indicated it was no longer critical for a tracking session for recording, as there were often enough
tracks on the recorder to record each microphone separately, including a live 5.1 or 7.1 mix at the
same time. M1 described the historical context:
When I started, people summed things all the time. People don’t sum multiple mics.
together because they don’t have to anymore. There was a time when you had two 24-
track machines, and four of those tracks are dedicated to click and timecode. Now you
are down to 44 tracks total. So, you have your first violins front and back, so maybe you
sum the first violins and you made decisions. One of the decisions we don’t have to make
anymore is: Do I want to sum these three mics to one track?
The second reason mixers tend to avoid multitrack bussing is that summing amps in the
multitrack busses are very common failure points on the console. To avoid that risk, many
mixers simply avoid the multitrack busses to route directly to the recorder. M2 detailed the
following:
Normally we are recording all the mics because we have the channel count now, and I
don’t run out of channels. I find that multitrack bussing is on the whole, the place where a
console breaks the most, either in the way it sums, or a failure in the switch. … Those
things tend to break most often on a console, in my experience. So, I don’t typically use
them.
Nearly half of the interview subjects (47%) mentioned whether they currently used
multitrack busses or would use them in the future. Most of this group mentioned using the busses
for critical recording situations. However, M2 said the busses were “more useful in sending
things, paths that are not critical recording paths, like headphones.” M12, who commented on

42
using busses to sum critical recording paths, described, “If all of a sudden, we are doing rhythm
section plus strings plus more, now you’re doing old-school stuff and you’re in trouble. Then
you need your busses.” One respondent spoke about using busses for an advanced recording
technique. M14 noted, “If I were doing percussion, I’ll do a parallel compression buss and we’ve
used multitrack busses for that.”
In terms of the number of multitrack busses they might use, more than half (57%) of the
interview respondents indicated they would prefer to work with between 24 and 75 busses.
About a third (29%) mentioned that 96 busses is an appropriate number. In fact, 96 is also the
current number of multitrack busses available in most of the large scoring stages in Los Angeles,
including in the Studio. A few mixers (14%) indicated they would like to have at least 192, if not
many more, available while recording. This last group also assumed that the multitrack busses
would be associated with the stem busses, which explains why they would like to see so many on
the console.
Stems
Most of the respondents indicated that stem separation was critical to their work in
scoring, although stem separation was far more critical in the mixing phase, as opposed to the
tracking phase of recording. The flexibility and ability to generate all necessary stems in a single
output record pass, including separation of reverb for each stem, has a strong bearing on the
realities of analog versus digital technology for the mixing phase of postproduction.
Stems offer a reasonable method for separating specific musical elements; they also offer
control to the film makers for adjusting such elements. In light of this type of control, along with
an ever-increasing ability for virtually unlimited outputs, the number of stems, along with the
number of individual tracks feeding a stem, continue to grow. Several mixers mentioned that

43
stem separation has grown tremendously over the last few years, and many more were required
for deliverables in modern times. This also plays a significant role in managing reverbs. Briefly,
a “stem” is a multichannel output group of a certain type of element, such as strings, winds,
brass, percussion, etc. Each stem has a typically defined channel format, such as 5.1 (Left, Right,
Center, Sub, Left Surr., Right Surr.), and as much as 9.1.6 where 16 individual channels feed a
specific stem. As outputs become more available, and as stem separation becomes more required,
the ability to generate stems is becoming more a normal part of the delivery requirements from
the music department.
One of the concerns raised by the interview subjects was that, as stem separation
becomes more required and expected, this changes the way the mixers think and plan about
deliverables, and is shaped by the technical output capability of the mixing facility. M1 described
the dilemma,
I would start with how wide you could make the 88R monitor section bigger? 7.1.4 is 12
channels, times 12 stems, which is 144 channels. Let’s throw that out there, and that’ll be
fine for a year and a half until it’s not enough anymore.
M2 agreed, “Film work obviously requires stemming everything to the gills.” The
challenge for modern mixers is that stem outputs are not standard, and, according to M8, “it
expands, and contracts based on what the needs are on the production. It completely ebbs and
flows based on the production.” One additional challenge is that with additional requirements for
stem outputs, often the DAW sessions result in far more output stem tracks, than original input
(microphone) tracks. M10 explained, “I end up with probably a lot more stem tracks than I do
multitracks.” In terms of how many stems were sufficient for the modern workflow, 40% of the

44
respondents said up to 16 stems were sufficient; 20% claimed between 20-30 stems were
sufficient. The remaining 40% claimed that they needed 48 stems or more in their workflow.
Finding 3: Preferred Microphone Preamplifiers (PRE) and Analog-to-Digital Converters
(ADC)
There were two brands of microphone preamplifiers and one brand of analog-to-digital
converters that were mentioned as preferred by the interview participants more often than most
other brands. The microphone PRE is a critical component in the recording process because it is
the first piece of technology into which a microphone is plugged, and has individual components
that transform microphone levels to professional line level. Once the signal is at line level, it can
be connected and routed to many other parts of the recording studio, such as the DAW, the
monitoring system, and ultimately the speakers in the control room. The ADCs are critical
because this is the stage at which analog audio voltage is converted into a digital signal, which
can then be recorded in the DAW. When asked about their preference for both PRE and ADC,
there were many options that were mentioned, but a few that were mentioned more often than
any other in the list.
Microphone Preamplifiers
Many of the respondents had differing opinions about their preferred PRE, but several
brands and models were mentioned most often in the list of their favorites. This finding is
significant as it will help inform decisions about what additional equipment and infrastructure
may be required in any future redesign plan for the scoring control room. The respondents tended
to prefer the microphone PREs that they owned personally. M1 noted, “Our mixer cohort owns a
bunch of stuff, and that’s of course, the favorite stuff.” M14 corroborated this sentiment, “I

45
recently bought a couple channels of the Manley PREs. … I think they’re kind of as good as it
gets.”
Most respondents named very similar brands and models in their list of favorite PREs,
although most mixers had a brand or two which were not mentioned by other mixers in the study.
Figure 3 shows the number of times a particular PRE was mentioned as a preferred brand to use.
Grace and Neve PREs were the most common, followed by Millennia, and Pueblo Audio. The
remaining brands were mentioned as a preferred brand, but only once by any of the interview
participants.

Figure 3: Number of Mentions as “Preferred” by Mic. PRE Equipment Brand
Number of Mentions as Preferred by Microphone PRE Equipment Brand

46
In all of the interviews, 18 different manufacturers of PREs were mentioned in the list of
each mixer’s preferred PRE. Of these, Grace and Neve were the most preferred PRE in the
sample. Both Grace and Neve were tied with the same number of mentions (8). Millennia was
named second most often with 4 mentions, and Pueblo Audio had the third most mentions (3).
The remaining 14 preferred microphone PREs were all only mentioned once by a respondent.
The quality of equipment and level of service for the Grace PRE was among the principal
reasons it was named most often by the respondents. M13 explained, “The company is so
responsive to customer needs, and they make great sounding gear. They make very reliable gear.
You can get them on the phone if it breaks, and they fix it right away. So Grace is excellent.” M4
concurred, further describing the Grace quality as
super clean, super quiet. I can change the input gain-wise as I’m recording, which is a big
deal because sometimes in live scoring you’re dealing with things in real time with
volume changes. And if you use other preamps, you’ll hear either scratchiness, or you’ll
hear a clunk.
After the microphone PRE and other elements of the console, the next major component
to investigate is the ADC. Historically, these have been external to the digital audio workstation
(DAW), but most respondents indicated they normally used the ADC built-in to the DAW.
Analog-to-Digital Converters
Most of the respondents indicated that the built-in ADCs in existing AVID hardware (HD
I/O) was of sufficient quality, eliminating the need for outboard (external) ADCs on the
recording DAW. This finding is significant because it informs the choices about additional
infrastructure and equipment in any update or redesign of a scoring control room. M3
commented, “I use the AVID converters, I think they sound really good. I’m not inspired to use

47
outboard converters because, as soon as you introduce yet another array of technology, then you
are subject to more failures and issues.” Another respondent, M6, commented on the historical
context, “I think outboard converters were kind of a bigger deal back in the day, when it was
hard to find really good converters. I think they’re fairly more commoditized these days.”
External converters are much easier to justify and manage for smaller channel counts
(fewer microphones). When channel counts are higher, external converters are difficult to
manage. M3 commented, “When you are talking about recording 72 channels…it’s just not
worth the time and effort and setup in potential problems. The ends don’t justify this road.” M2
mentioned the value of consistency,
The AVID HD I/Os are really solid, and if they work together in that system, then I
would choose that kind of reliability over using an outboard converter, the headache that
comes with clocking outboard converters and getting them into HDX.
When asked to mention ADCs they preferred to use, even if they tended to not use
outboard converters, the AVID ADCs in the HD I/O and MTRX was mentioned most often
(80%) by the interview respondents as the preferred ADC. Something to note is that most mixers
had several ADCs with which they preferred to work. Only one respondent mentioned a single
manufacturer that they preferred to use for most applications. Most interview subjects (93%) had
a list of two or more ADC manufacturers they considered the highest quality, depending on the
application. At the same time, 80% of the respondents admitted they preferred to use the AVID
ADCs for their quality, support, consistency, and reliability. Beyond that, much like the preferred
microphone PRE responses presented, there were nine other ADC manufacturers mentioned.
Lavry/dB Technologies was mentioned second most often (3), and Focusrite was mentioned
third most often (2). The respondents who mentioned these outboard ADCs as ones they

48
preferred for quality still maintained that the AVID ADCs were good enough in quality, and
provided far more stability and consistency, as opposed to using outboard converters. M8 noted,
Five, 6, or 7 years ago, there was such a wide disparity between A to D converters. But it
seems to me like the playing field has been leveled in the last few years. For what we do,
the difference between converters nowadays is so minimal, I can work with any of them.
Figure 4 shows the number of times an ADC was identified by the interview participants
as a preferred converter. The AVID converters were mentioned most often, followed by Lavy/dB
Technologies and Focusrite. The remaining ADC manufacturers were only mentioned by one
interview participant.
Finding 4: Technology Failures Typically Fall Into Four Categories, and Mitigating
Technology Failures Involves Holding Sufficient Spares Inventory and Dedicated Physical
Maintenance.
The study revealed several findings of interest to the researcher about the respondents’
view of technology failures on a scoring stage during a recording session. Technology failures
typically fall into the following four categories: (a) console, (b) microphones, (c) connectivity
(cables), and (d) DAW (recorder). Mitigating technology failures involves holding sufficient
spares inventory and dedicated physical maintenance. In addition to the types of technology
failures, the study also revealed that failures are commonplace and expected, and that failures
can be reduced and mitigated, but never completely eliminated.
Scoring mixers are acutely aware the failures happen in nearly every recording session.
With the financial cost of the musicians on the stage including all the support staff supporting the
session, there is a concerted effort to operate the sessions at nearly perfect up-time (i.e., no
down-time). To fulfill this goal when failures happen, they must be attended to and fixed

49
immediately. This study documented the critical considerations about technology failures from
the point of view of the scoring mixer. All of the mixers in this study described some of the
common failures that happen during a session, and that it would be unreasonable to expect a
recording session where nothing failed. M7 summed up this sentiment, “Within the analog realm,
I think for a scoring stage, these things just happen, right?” The following begins with a
description of the first category of failure: console failure.

Figure 4: Number of Mentions as “Preferred” by Converter Brand
Number of Mentions as Preferred, by Converter Brand

50
Console Failures
The first technology failure that the majority (93%) of the mixers mentioned was issues
with the audio console. This is likely not a surprise, as the scoring mixer usually sits in the front,
and operates the audio console during the recording session, so they are the first to personally
notice when the failure happens. Collecting insights from the interview sample about console
failures is critical when considering any type of change, as it is the central piece of equipment
that ties the entire room together, and it is often the most expensive piece of equipment in the
studio. In terms of specifically what tends to fail on the console, the mixers mentioned faders,
channel strips, and switches. When recalling an issue with a fader, M1 noted, “Faders might be
sticky, or it’s in a group, and you find that something just needs a good thorough cleaning.” M8
described the failures as “dirty switches on the console, jittery faders.” M10 described his
experience with such failures, “you walk in and it’s like, ‘Oh you can’t use that fader.’ So, you
are down a group, or you’re down an input module.”
Failures on channel strips include problems with equalization (EQ), dynamics, and sends
to reverbs, effects, or outputs on a particular channel in the console. M2 described his
experience, “If you work on an 8068 or an 8078, you should just avoid EQ at this point, and
avoid the Aux Sends unless they’ve been completely rebuilt.” Another mixer, M3, described a
failure and workaround, “an analog board, where a channel would go dead, and hopefully there’s
the ability to patch around it.” One mixer had an interesting point of view on a specific type of
console failure of setting up a feed for a headphone mix to the musicians. Musicians need
headphones to hear a variety of elements during the recording session which often comes from
the main scoring console. M4 explained,

51
Other studios, I think the major downfall is usually the headphones and the headphone
system, and the way it gets sent from the console. I think more often than not, that seems
to be the problem child of all the different rooms around town, is the headphone loss and
the distribution.
Console failures may also lead to bigger issues of confidence and creative flow, besides
simply causing problems technically recording a score. M6 explained,
It seems like a lot of the old consoles need a lot of card reseating or button exercising or
knob exercising, and that derails everything more than just the time. There’s an emotional
response. Are we sure we are getting what we need here? Have we actually recorded any
of this? Let’s go back to 1M1 (the name of a cue) and just make sure it plays back.
Microphone failures
The next most common failure identified by 67% of the mixers interviewed involved
microphones. When microphones fail, the added value of working on a stage with an extensive
microphone collection is clear, to move past the failure and resume work as soon as practical.
M4 explained, “Anything that’s happening, it would be sort of a scratchy mic, or a mic that goes
down or a bad cable. So, it’s things that are quickly replaceable and you can swap it out fast.” In
terms of specific failures in microphones, one of the sensitive elements are the tubes inside the
microphone. M8 described, “For the most part it’s electrical components that fail because of
exposure and overuse…microphones that need a tube replaced.” M10 described his experience
with failing microphones as “mics that go down in the middle of sessions because they are not
well maintained.”

52
Connectivity (Cables) Failures
The third most common failure described by the sample (40%) was connectivity issues,
most commonly, cables. The respondents also pointed out that connectivity issues were nearly
impossible to prevent, but were easily resolved. M7 explained, “The things that historically
always go wrong … is always cables. It’s just going to happen.” M11 described, “99% of audio
problems are connection related.” Another mixer, M12, submitted that connectivity issues were
fairly common, stating, “On the audio side, either with the console microphone tie lines. … I
think it’s all within the realm of normal standard operating procedure.” M13 agreed that cable
issues were a common problem, stating, “we have the usual microphone cable problems. There’s
not a lot that interrupts our daily chores above and beyond the little irritating console things.”
DAW (Recorder) Failures
The last most common failure named by one-third of the interview subjects (33%) was
the DAW, which is the primary recording device during the session. With only a third of the
respondents even mentioning failures involving the DAW, this is clearly the least common
failure experienced by the study sample. Failures with the DAW are also rarely catastrophic, and
are quickly resolved by rebooting the computer. M3 explained, “Everybody who has used Pro
Tools understands the challenge … the resolution of that sometimes is just a reboot.” M4 noted,
“Sometimes the Pro Tools will lock up, but then if it’s really bad, then you have to restart. But
that only takes a minute or two, so that’s not bad.” M8 explained that computer issues may also
include “incompatible software and hard drive failure.”
Mitigating Technology Failures
While it is a worthy effort to mitigate technology failure, there will always be failures of
some kind. Digital audio systems will not eliminate technology failures, it will only shift the type

53
of failures to a different set of technology. Mitigating technology failure will continue to be, as it
has always been, in the responsibility realm of maintenance. The most successful way to mitigate
technology failure is to place priority, time, and resources on maintaining the systems in place.
Those facilities that place priority on maintenance tend to operate with lower down-time.
According to the interviewees, the most successful way to mitigate technology failure
falls into the following two categories: (a) holding sufficient spare parts inventory; and (b)
continual maintenance, including personal attention, continual knowledge development, and
scheduling maintenance windows to address ongoing issues. Spare parts include both extra
recording elements, such as cables and extra microphones of the exact type, above and beyond
what is required for the session. Spare parts also include extra boards, channel strips, and various
components of the analog console that can be swapped out quickly during a recording session.
Maintenance includes not only the physical maintenance performed by a facility engineer, but
also includes support from management to schedule and set aside the required time to perform
the maintenance itself.
Spares inventory as a technology failure mitigation strategy is one mixer’s primary
mitigation strategy. M1 explained, “We have spares.” He continued to describe that spares’
availability is the primary method for mitigating technology failures, especially when you never
know where or when they will occur. M1 continued, “Spares. Cheap insurance. I have extra
HDX cards. I have extra mic. PREs. I have extra stuff. You need spares of the core components
so you can sleep at night.” Another mixer explained that spares inventory extends beyond
physical analog audio spares, but also includes spare computer parts, including boot drives, and
backups of recording data drives. M4 described how he had “everything backed up and [had]
system drives in place, so if there was a problem, I was able to get back up and running easily.”

54
It seems clear from the interviews that even if one attempts to maintain a facility as much as
possible, it is an impossible task to attempt to eliminate all failures at all times. And the best
option for dealing with failures is to include spare parts, to help get the session back up and
running as soon as practical.
In addition to a complete spares inventory, the other primary method for mitigating
technology failure is physical maintenance on the equipment. M5 described the value of
maintenance effort, “If we prep and check stuff in advance things go smoothly. I try to stay
ahead of potential problems … switching machines preemptively, updating carefully, lots of
maintenance.” M11 explained the value of maintenance, “maintenance on the equipment to me is
key.” Physical maintenance on the equipment is not practically possible without the support from
management to work such work into the schedule. M13 described the challenge as follows:
The problem always becomes time and, if the stage is heavily booked, there’s no real
time to get in. Because it’s the same people that run the sessions are the people that
would be having come in to repair the problems. So, how do you get the time? Do you
work over weekends, which is not very good for people’s personal life and schedule? Or,
how do you contend with just biting the bullet and shutting down for a short time to
repair everything that needs to be fixed? It’s the good news, bad news, situation. We’re
booked so heavily we don’t have time to fix anything. But the bad news is: the broken
things stay broken for longer than they should. And they do.
Often the maintained state of a facility plays a role in the relationship between the scoring
mixer hired for the session on the day, and the client (composer, production studio, etc.). M11
described this dilemma,

55
If you go to a studio and something is messed up, yeah, I can blame the studio all I want,
but my client is going to say: “Well, you know that’s really your domain.” And even
though it’s not my fault—I don’t service the consoles; I don’t service the gear—it is my
responsibility to take steps to mitigate that.
Finding 5: Audio Latency Is Critical for Certain Elements of the Recording Process
Audio latency comes from any component in the recording system that causes the audio
to be delayed, or play later than other elements playing at the same time. For the primary
recording signal chain, latency is a concern when considering converting to the digital domain,
and never a concern in the analog domain. In an effort to reduce or eliminate issues with latency,
recording and monitoring in the analog domain is the preference of most respondents in this
study. While audio latency is a significant consideration for the primary audio signal chain, it is
less so for ancillary audio elements, such as reverb or effects. Several mixers mentioned that
latency is more often a factor of the DAW interacting with plug-ins on the recorder, as opposed
to latency from the ADC. One of them described a test he performed routing audio in and out of
the DAW. M1 explained at the conclusion of the test,
I looked at everything, and the space apart from everything to see what my latency was,
from the original playback track to the live mix, and it was like a millisecond at most. A
couple samples, and I was like, “Great!”
This mixer continued to describe the latency danger from plug-ins interacting in the
DAW. M1 elaborated,
I did find I had a plug-in path feeding a TC Electronics Native plug-in, and it introduced
latency in a live mix without me realizing it. But a savvy musician caught it. He heard the
delay in the mix being played back.

56
None of the respondents were concerned about latency introduced in a reverb or its effect
on the signal. This is due to the nature of reverb, as described by M4, “It doesn’t affect anything
for reverbs. It’s delayed reflections anyway.” M13 agreed, “I don’t find in reverbs that latency is
a big deal. Latency is a big deal in some plug-ins, but reverbs less so because they’re
automatically behind.” The same mixer continued, emphasizing that the most significant place
where latency is an issue is when “we’re developing headphone mixes and things like that,
because then you do have to worry about latency.” While there is evidence that modern ADCs
are of high enough quality and low enough latency, the issue of latency is not a problem for
reverbs and effects. However, it is worth paying attention to when using plug-ins during a
recording session.
Finding 6: The Choice of Recording Sample Rate Is Based on a Combination of Audio
Fidelity and Workflow Impact.
The choice of recording sample rate is determined from a combination of sonic quality,
workflow, and delivery specification. While most of the mixers interviewed (80%) mentioned
that they would prefer to record at 96 kHz sampling rate or higher for quality, 73% mentioned
they typically operated at 48 kHz sampling rate due to production and delivery requirements.
These requirements are making the recorded media available to the picture editorial team, as well
as music editors preparing to deliver to the dub stage for the final mix.
Most of the mixers interviewed understood the quality difference in audio recorded at
different sample rates, and as such, if not bound by production delivery requirements, would
record at either 96 kHz or 192 kHz sample rate. M2 noted,

57
I roll with 96 most of the time. … I won’t go 192 because a lot of my plug-ins don’t work
at 192. It’d be cool to record at 192 if it was solid, and I didn’t feel like the computer was
on the verge of falling over. Why would I choose that?
A different respondent, M9, further explained, “I do think 192 on the HD I/Os sounds the
best … but, typically, I record at 96 because it’s a compromise. I think it’s better than 48. You
can make it work at 96, so that’s where I generally step.”
Working at a higher sample rate has a few trade-offs on the side of the computer that is
recording the audio and writing that data onto data storage. The trade-offs include more
computer resources (memory, CPU, etc.); larger file sizes, requiring faster storage and larger
storage pools; and compatibility with other software tools such as plug-ins. M5described the
current state of the art, as follows:
48k is very standard and decent enough for post[production] work. Records I do [are] at
96k. As machines keep getting faster and [more] reliable, we’ll probably shift to 96k as
an industry. Today, it is still a bit of a pain.
M7 noted, “I’ll record at 48k 24 bit because that’s what’s going to be the final
destination, and because it frees up resources and doesn’t cut my available resources in half as it
does if I work at 96k.” M12 agreed, “If fidelity is not the question, then 48 is the answer at the
moment because you can run as many passes as they want, and nothing explodes.”
The scoring mixers interviewed often choose the recording sample rate based on the
sample rate that they would be expected to deliver. The score recording portion of
postproduction happens toward the end of the postproduction process, and the mixers are often
caught between established technical specifications from the picture department, as well as

58
delivery specifications for the dub stage that will be doing the final mastering work for the show.
M8 explained,
I have to use 48k because those are the specs that I receive. I usually can’t dictate the
sample rate, but in what I do, the standard is 48k. … I have to work at 48k because that’s
what my bosses tell me that we’re at.”
M15 summed this up further,
I think 96 is the perfect balance. I work at 48 all the time just because that’s what the
deliverables require, and they want it to be that way. And the system runs faster, and I
can work faster at 48k. Everything takes a little bit more, and it takes twice as long and
twice as much at 96k.
One interesting note is that the researcher came into this study assuming that some of the
mixers would talk about working at 384 kHz sample rate. It turned out, only one mixer, M13,
ever mentioned working at 384 kHz, and his experience included “stereo and up to eight
channels of recording.” This is a far cry from the dozens of microphones recorded during a
typical session. M13 also described some listening tests that he had done comparing the analog
input to the monitor return after being converted to various sample rates. For these tests, M13
recalled,
We found that when we got to 192, we had a really hard time telling the difference. 96
you could always tell the difference. 48 was easy. … I would expect, [with] 384, it would
be impossible to hear any more difference. 192, 32 bit is probably the best that we have
right now, that we use every day.
This indicates that out of the entire sample interviewed, only one mixer ever mentioned
384 kHz sample rate, and he even alluded to the fact that it would be very difficult to hear the

59
difference between audio recorded at 192 kHz versus 384 kHz. For the minimal increase in audio
fidelity, the cost to reach that level of fidelity would not only be in upgrading equipment that can
reliably operate at 384 kHz, but there is also a significant cost in the reduction of the number of
channels you can operate at that sample rate. M13 described it this way: “It becomes a question
of how many tracks can you run at that sample rate, along with the processing for all of the
output plug-ins.”
Finding 7: All of the Mixers Interviewed Had a Point of View and Strategy Regarding
Their Own Personal Equipment Upgrades and Repairs.
The larger scoring stages that operate are typically owned by larger media companies but
are operated by a variety of staff who are employed by the production, not by the facility. The
scoring mixers fall into this category of staff who may work at many facilities over the course of
a few weeks or days. All of the mixers interviewed had some equipment that they personally
owned and would bring to the recording stage when possible. This may include microphones and
microphone preamplifiers. In addition, the mixers also typically own and operate a mix room (or
more) that they personally own. When asked about the needs and considerations for maintaining
and upgrading their own personal equipment, including whether to repair or replace failing or
obsolete technology, the respondents shared their experiences and points of view, as summarized
in the following sections.
Personal Technology Upgrades
Every mixer interviewed for this study has spent some amount of money upgrading the
elements of their kits that they felt needed the most attention, and in order to stay current with
the state of the art for scoring recording. These upgrades fell into the following three categories:
(a) facility/infrastructure; (b) monitor-speaker systems; and (c) computer hardware and software

60
upgrades. Curiously, only one mixer commented that they already had a relatively complete
microphone collection. So, in terms of purchasing or upgrading decisions, mixers tended to
invest in technology that was a direct part of their workflow and revenue, including the three
categories described previously. The mixer who mentioned microphones, M2, described that he
was “trying not to buy mics. I have a lot of mics, and I feel like I have enough mics.” Only one
other mixer mentioned he purchased several microphones in the previous year; M13 stated, “I’ve
added some 47 clones to the mic kit and a few C37A clones. Things like that are just good
modern microphones that perform like the vintage mics, and I expect I will continue to do that.”
This study found that the facility/infrastructure upgrades for the respondents’ personal
workspace was either an upgrade to the physical space, building, or cabling/connectivity. M1
also mentioned purchasing “[t]wo new doors. As far as sound isolation goes, it’s a nice little
bump.” M8 noted, “The most major upgrade is building a home studio in the first place, and it’s
always changing and morphing when you’re building a studio in the garage and then converting
the home office.”
The second most-frequently mentioned personal upgrade the mixers purchased in the past
year was updates to their monitoring and speaker systems. M2 mentioned that in addition to his
speakers, “[he] bought a 3M M79 one-inch eight-track (tape machine).” He further explained
that he was incorporating the tape machine as well as “more of [his] analog gear into [his]
mixing domain.” Another example of a speaker or monitor upgrade is installing a Dolby Atmos
capable system. M5 explained, “Atmos ready rooms are the last major upgrade. We have two
Atmos mix rooms and two Atmos-ready control surfaces.” M7 reported, “I just bought an S6 and
a 7.1.2 monitoring system. I definitely have upgraded to Atmos.”

61
The third category of equipment that the mixers mentioned purchasing to upgrade their
systems was the computer systems, including both hardware and software updates. The hardware
updates typically include either the latest release of the Mac Pro (2019) or newly refurbished
working model of the 2012 release of the Mac Pro. M3 added, “I’ve just installed a system where
I’m able to now access and utilize my gear.” M4 described a situation where he was forced to
buy new hardware attesting, “It was a similar style and model as the one that failed, and the
primary reason was because it just died, so I had to get it going again.” M8 conferred, “Probably
the most common upgrades that go on are software and CPUs, the computers themselves.” In
addition to hardware, the most common type of software described in the interviews was plug-
ins. M6 explained, “I keep on buying plug-ins. I have an embarrassing amount of plug-ins.”
This category of hardware upgrade also includes peripherals that connect directly to the
computer. Upgrades of this type include small control surfaces such as an AVID S3 or a Stream
Deck controller. M14 explained the reason for the purchase thusly:
For me, it’s been invaluable because it’s little things I do over and over again when I’m
mixing, or if I’m printing mixes, or literally exporting mixes to be posted. I’ve been able
to automate so much stuff down to one button.
Personal Repair or Replace
When the interview subjects go to a studio, such as a scoring stage, they enjoy the fact
that maintenance is performed by the staff engineers, and the visiting scoring mixers are not
responsible for the upkeep of maintenance of outside studios. All of the subjects who were
interviewed understood the value of maintaining their own studios and equipment but had
differing tolerances for whether they would personally repair or replace any failing technology in
their own space. A third (33%) of the interview subjects indicated that they had the personal

62
tools, knowledge, and experience to repair their own equipment themselves. M2 noted, “If it’s a
simple thing, I’ll definitely dig into it. I have a bench and I’ll try and fix it. Tube stuff is much
easier for me than anything else.” The remainder of the respondents indicated that they often had
trusted technicians to whom they would send failing equipment for repair. M7 explained, “I can
fix almost any cable, but when it comes to the guts of a mic, I’m going to ship that out to
someone else.” M8 indicated there were times when replacing failed gear was not an option,
stating, “If it can’t be replaced, then I’ll always repair it.”
A few of the mixers commented that price would often dictate whether something would
be repaired or simply replaced. M8 noted, “With computers, I’m usually trading in or trading up,
or graduating computers to other tasks and buying new equipment. So, cost primarily dictates
whether or not something is fixed or replaced.” In addition, the function of the equipment in
question often determines if it is repaired or replaced. M9 explained, “That old monitor I bought
in 2013, yeah exactly, that’s going to retire. It’s going to be recycled. But microphones and
preamps, all that stuff is going to be repaired.” Following an attempt to personally repair any
failing technology, or sending it to a trusted repair facility, the remaining option is to replace it
with the same make/model, or something very similar.
Finding 8: Automation Is Not a Critical Consideration During the Recording Phase of
Score Production.
For transparency, the researcher entered this study with a bias that console automation is
a relatively important element to carry between the tracking session and subsequent mixing
sessions. Automation typically includes volume levels, and insert parameters, although simply
carrying volume automation from the tracking session to the mix seemed like a significant
advantage. What emerged from this study was that, while any automation would be considered

63
helpful to bring from the tracking session into the mix, it was certainly neither expected nor
required. While 67% of the interview respondents indicated that carrying their mix automation
from tracking into mixing would be “nice,” all of them noted that this was not truly required. In
most cases, the mixers effectively have the automation for the mix in the form of their live mix,
which is a mix-down of the tracks recorded during the tracking session.
The general consensus among the interviewees indicates that, while having their
automation is helpful, it is not worth redesigning or completely changing the current workflow to
accommodate something that is simply “nice.” This presents a bias from the researcher that the
problem originally perceived to be an issue was not nearly as significant a problem that my
respondents perceived. In hindsight, this may be a simple case of the cure being worse than the
disease. M7 articulated this specifically, “I guess the question is, would [automation] be helpful
enough to completely redesign the control room in order to accommodate that? No. Not at all.”
This sentiment is at the heart of this research study. Given the fact that the stage is due for a
change, how significant should the change be based on the technology available, and the history
of the scoring workflow? This is truly the heart of the matter, and one core question under
investigation.
Several mixers mentioned that a certain version of the mix automation is preserved in the
live mix, which is typically recorded with every cue. Additionally, several mixers described their
mixing skill as the ability to get back to the live mix without the aid of automation. M2 described
this as follows:
We’re printing a live mix. Your live automation is sort of baked in there. I don’t get
married to it, and I also don’t believe that any performance is a snowflake. I can do it
again. That’s what I do is mix every day. I’m not afraid of losing my best take as a mixer.

64
One respondent described a scenario where the tracking automation was not even
available for the mix. M3 noted, “Almost any film score nowadays is coming from overseas. I’m
not even privy to any of the information of where the faders were, how it was recorded, or any of
that. I’m kind of on my own.” M10 explained further, “It sure would be nice to be able to just
bring back the session, all my levels and everything. But, on the current workflow, I don’t see a
reason for that.” M11elaborated,
I care about the sound. I care about the separation. I care about the performance. I care
about the happiness of my clients. I care about the equipment. I care about everything but
the automation. On that day, I don’t even turn it on.
Discussion
This discussion section deserves the following vulnerability statement from the
researcher: I thought I would learn X, but what I actually learned was Y. As mentioned in my
positionality statement earlier, and my bias coming into this research project, I expected to learn
that analog failures were unacceptable, and that the solution to these failures would be a
transition to a completely digital workflow. Among my key findings is the fact that the key
stakeholders feel very comfortable in their current environment, even if it involves some level of
failure, as long as the failures are managed and solved in a timely manner during the recording
session. There is a general consensus that failures that cause complete derailing of a scoring
session are unacceptable. What is considered acceptable, however, is real-time solution of
immediate technology failures with keen attention to detail, as well as preventing and mitigating
such failures in the future.
While I assumed that the solution to the many minute failures of an analog environment
was to transition to a digital environment, what I learned was that the mixing clients would find

65
such a transition to be too cumbersome to implement in terms of the learning curve; and that the
proverbial cure could be much worse than the disease. In addition, I expected the interviews to
reveal the mixers’ commitment to super-high quality, which would include ultra-high sample
rates (384 kHz). What I learned was that the cost of operating at such high sample rates far
outweighs any perceived benefit. And the benefits at that scale start to align with the law of
diminishing returns (Ravichandran et al., 2017).
Another striking finding was the prevalence with which the interview participants
preferred analog technology for tracking sessions. Figure 5 shows this in two significant ways.
First, analog is the preferred technology over all other options. Second, the hybrid option
includes analog as a portion of the option for the preferred technology, while entirely digital
and/or a control surface is the least preferred technology for a tracking session.
Of note is that the two mixers who rated digital technology higher than any other
technology were not the same as the two mixers who rated the control surface technology the
highest as the preferred technology. In light of this, they still were half the preferred technology
count as analog, and 30% of the total analog plus hybrid preferred counts. In addition, the
satisfaction score for digital and control surfaces had a mean and median value of 6 and 5,
respectively, on a scale of 1–10.
This validates the insight that digital and control surfaces alone are not the preferred
technology when looking at the sample as an entire group. My interpretation of these data is that
it is not impossible for digital or control surface technology to be used for a tracking session;
except, it would be difficult to convince the day-to-day operators of the sessions to adopt it at the
present time. If a change initiative emerges to promote an all-digital or all-control surface

66
environment, much work is to be done to promote or educate the scoring mixers to the
advantages and benefits of such an environment.

Figure 5: Number of Mentions as “Preferred” by Technology
Number of Mentions As Preferred by Type of Technology

67
Recommendations
In light of the critical needs and considerations described and the data collected from the
interviews, the remainder of this paper is a documentation of recommended intervention(s),
costs, benefits, and a cost-benefit analysis of four different strategic interventions in an effort to
avoid business failure as a result of the different types of obsolescence.
Beginning with a list of costs for a recording studio, and specifically related to
technological obsolescence, one significant cost factor is equipment costs. In a recording studio,
equipment costs are divided by equipment function, and are separated into the following four
categories: (a) capture devices (microphones); (b) recording devices (digital audio workstations
[DAW]); (c) transmission (wires/cables); and (d) the mixing console (board). While each
category has a specific set of costs associated with maintaining or replacing the equipment, the
mixing console bears the majority of the cost for replacing and can cost upwards of $800,000,
depending on the size of the board and quality of individual components (Ramsey, 2019). In
addition to equipment costs, labor costs for a four-person crew on a scoring stage can add up
quickly, costing around $11,376 per week (Wages, Contracts, and Holidays, n.d.).
One of the leading benefits of a business venture is revenue, paid from customers to the
business, in exchange for their goods or service (Hackbarth et al., 2014). For a music recording
studio, revenues are money paid by recording artists for time spent in the studio, performing their
music, and recording it in a DAW. Benefits in addition to revenue paid for time in the studio
include contributions to union pensions and health care, and contributions to ancillary businesses
(e.g., music copyists, musicians’ contractor, and musicians’ union). One additional benefit is the
savings on not paying on a completion bond. A completion bond is a financial instrument issued

68
to a production company in the event the production company is not able to complete and release
the film in production.
A brief reminder of the three audio technologies presented in the interventions is useful.
This analysis assumes that the recording studio under review currently has an analog console
with analog infrastructure (cables) connecting the microphones to the recorder. The analog-to-
digital converters are on the DAW at the very end of the signal chain. Analog audio is sound
generated by an oscillating source such as a musical instrument which is then converted to
oscillating electrical voltage, while digital audio is a string of numerical data that represents
analog audio (Downes, 2010). A control surface is a device that looks much like an audio mixing
board, but the faders, knobs, and buttons control parameters in the DAW. An analog audio
console routes, processes, and controls analog audio through the device, on the way to the DAW,
as well as analog audio that returns to the monitoring section of the console. A digital audio
console serves the same function by routing, processing, and controlling audio on the way to and
from the DAW, but it does so with digital audio such as AES-3, which specifies transmitting a
pair of digital audio channels over a single pair of copper wire (Watkinson, 2002).
A control surface controlling a DAW serves a similar function as a keyboard, monitor,
and mouse. These devices serve as input and output devices. A keyboard and mouse allow a
computer user to input data into the computer by typing on the keyboard or clicking the button of
a mouse. The display shows feedback from the computer for the functions performed on the
input. In a similar way, an audio mixing control surface allows the user to provide input to the
DAW by moving faders, turning knobs, and pushing buttons. The control surface also has small
display monitors, as well as LEDs on the surface, to provide visual feedback to the user about

69
how the DAW is processing or changing the sound. The user then listens to the sound through a
monitor path coming from the DAW and played in the local studio control room speakers.
Findings and Recommendations
There were eight main findings related to the perceptions of scoring mixers, as explained
in Table 2. The following recommendations address the key findings:
1. Identify knowledge gaps in operational value to support data driven decision making
in significant technology upgrades.
2. Encourage dialogue between management and operations about critical needs and
considerations from both perspectives required to support business sustainability.
3. Plan and deploy an analog mixing console for a control room upgrade.
Recommendation 1: Identify Knowledge Gaps in Operational Value to Support Data
Driven Decision Making in Significant Technology Upgrades.
Ninety-three percent of the interview respondents commented on the significance of the
learning curve when attempting to operate a new digital or control surface console. Most
respondents also noted the value of being able to sit in their chair and immediately get to work
during a recording session. Running and maintaining a recording business includes the
procurement, maintenance, retirement, and replacement of technology. This process is often
referred to as a product life cycle and its place in organizational structures, including product
manuals, training efforts, scheduled reviews, and other technology supporting its use (Ginn,
2006). This context-specific recommendation includes making the findings and
recommendations of this study available to the decision makers in a simple to read and
understand executive summary.

70
Recommendation 2: Encourage Dialogue Between Management and Operations About
Critical Needs and Considerations From Both Perspectives Required to Support Business
Sustainability.
Eighty-seven percent of the respondents admitted to thinking seriously about advancing
recording technology, the individual components that make recording sessions work smoothly,
and improving elements to assist sessions to work even smoother. This consideration also
includes barriers to smooth operation, including audio latency, the learning curve, and specific
components typically prone to physical failure. The process of identifying and implementing
replacement technology involves a certain amount of risk, and modern research in product life
cycles and obsolescence is intended to help mitigate some of these risks (Duretec & Becker,
2017).
When identifying financial risk, Romero Rojo (2010) noted that obsolescence issues cost
the U.S. Navy around $750M per year. Financial risks include initial capital expenditure, but also
include financial commitment for training, updates to infrastructure when implementing new
technology, and additional support costs for using replacement equipment. To mitigate financial
risk, companies also tend to maintain their competitive advantage by strategically seeking
cutting-edge technology (Smeets & Bosker, 2011). Practically speaking, and elaborating on the
preceding recommendation, the most effective implementation of this intervention is to make an
executive summary available to the management team, schedule a meeting to explain the
implications, and answer any questions about the summary’s findings, scope, and meaning.

71
Recommendation 3: Plan and Deploy an Analog Mixing Console for a Control Room
Upgrade.
Ninety-three percent of the interview respondents indicated that, given the choice, they
would prefer a newly manufactured analog mixing console to replace the failing equipment
currently in use at the studio under study. Audio latency when converting to the digital domain is
a critical consideration for live recording, when musicians are monitoring live mixed audio in
their headphone mix. This study focuses on the problem of technology obsolescence, which
occurs when studio equipment does not function as well as newer versions of the same product,
or when hardware or software is no longer available or supported by the original supply chain
(Cooper, 2004; Bartels et al., 2012).
Currently, the Studio is faced with determining whether to replace existing analog audio
components and infrastructure with currently available (new) analog components, or to transition
to an entirely digital equivalent. The primary purpose of this study was to analyze and identify
mitigating technology obsolescence by replacing an obsolete technology. Future performance is
often compared to past-results, and if a major economic incident were to transpire, this would
affect commercial enterprise, revenue streams, and reliability of the proposed recommendations
(Majumder & Giri, 2020). A project of this scope requires the following: an initial planning of
the vision and goals; a detailed request for proposal (RFP); a detailed bill of materials (BOM); a
current drawings of the existing version of the control room; future planned synoptic, elevation,
and detail drawings of the control room; a proposed budget; and proposed scheduling
documentation.

72
Cost Analysis
To mitigate the risks of business failure associated with technology obsolescence, this
section presents four interventions or changes to the business practice of upgrading or replacing
the technology used in a recording studio. The interventions also focus on replacing the audio
console in the studio with four differing technologies, including (a) analog audio; (b) digital
audio; (c) control surface; and (d) hybrid model, including a combination of analog and control
surface. Each type of replacement technology influences other systems in the studio, which in
turn affects the cost and scope of the intervention. Each is introduced and described in this
section.
Interventions
The first intervention involves replacing the analog audio console with another analog
audio console that is newly manufactured. Since the infrastructure (wiring) would remain the
same, the bulk of the cost for this intervention comes from the price of the audio console, which
could easily reach $800,000 (Ramsey, 2019). The labor cost for this intervention is minimal, as it
does not require any major retooling for the systems around the console. A nominal cost is 4
weeks of work for two engineers, for a total labor cost of $25,000 (Wages, Contracts, and
Holidays, n.d.).
The second proposed intervention is replacing the analog audio console with a digital
audio console. The cost of a digital audio console of similar size and scope as the analog console
is approximately $100,000 (“Soundcraft,” n.d.). However, it requires additional outboard
microphone preamps costing $72,000 and analog-to-digital converters costing nearly $7,500
(“Rupert Neve Designs,” n.d.; “Ferrofish,” n.d.). With a change to an all-digital infrastructure,
additional equipment such as a digital router and physical infrastructure will cost nearly $10,500

73
(“RME MADI,” n.d.). This intervention involves more ancillary cost in addition to the digital
audio console, for a grand total of $190,000 in equipment cost. Sasidhar et al. (2017) reported
that construction type projects often break down to material costs as 40% and labor costs as the
remaining 60% for the project. With that breakdown, this intervention would incur nearly
$285,000 in labor cost, for a grand total cost of nearly $475,000.
The third intervention of replacing the analog audio console with a control surface would
incur the cost of $190,000 (“Avid,” n.d.), which includes the cost of the control surface, the same
converter and infrastructure costs as listed in the second proposed intervention above of $90,000,
plus additional equipment cost of $15,000 for a separate DAW to which the control surface
connects. Using the same labor cost as referenced in the second intervention, since the ancillary
work will be nearly identical, the labor for this intervention would cost $285,000, bringing the
grand total cost for the intervention to $580,000. Table 3 shows a summary of the proposed
interventions, equipment, labor, and total costs for the interventions.

Table 3: Interventions, Ingredients, and Labor Costs
Interventions, Ingredients, and Labor Costs

Intervention Equipment cost Intervention labor cost Total cost
Analog $800,000 $25,000 $825,000
Digital $190,000 $285,000 $475,000
Control surface $295,000 $285,000 $580,000
Hybrid $1,180,000 $310,000 $1,490,000

74
The fourth intervention is replacing the analog audio console with a hybrid environment
of both analog and control surface. For the purposes of this analysis, the researcher is assuming
that, since this will include mostly analog and partially digital equipment, it would be best to
include the entire cost of the analog equipment and labor, but half of the control surface
equipment and all of the analog plus control surface labor. With this formula, the equipment cost
is estimated at $1,180,000. The labor comes to an estimated $310,000. So, the total cost for this
intervention would be approximately $1,490,000.
The costs shown in Table 3 are initial costs for each intervention. One additional
intervention to mention is the option of doing nothing, which would save any of the intervention
costs. A study by Cooper (2004) found that many audio devices are discarded in disrepair after 5
years. This analysis will look at a 5-year span. So, if the company chooses no interventions, it is
likely that the equipment will suffer catastrophic loss at any point after 5 years of use, resulting
in planning, purchasing, and deploying one of the interventions in an emergency, resulting in the
same costs incurred but more substantial loss in revenue for the time that recording services are
unavailable.
For this analysis, one additional cost to be incurred is labor cost for normal operation of
the studio, once the intervention is complete. Normal operation for this studio requires a four-
person crew, including one supervising engineer and three recordists. According to the schedule
of wages from Wages, Contracts, and Holidays (n.d.), the weekly cost for the four-person crew is
$11,376, equating to $591,552 per year in operational cost.
Mathematical Analysis
Calculating the benefits and costs of an intervention involves a time element (more than a
single year), as well as a discounted rate for the benefits and discounted rates for the costs (Levin

75
et al., 2018). Levin et al. (2018) continue to describe this metric for cost benefit analysis as the
net present value (NPV), where “the NPV is the discounted value of the benefits minus the
discounted value of the costs” (p. 222). The way NPV is calculated is shown in (1).

NPV = BPV – CPV (1)

Levin et al. (2018) present the specific calculation for each part of NPV in (2), where t
represents time from 1 to n; i is the discount rate; B represents benefits; and C represents costs.

𝐵𝑃𝑉 =%
!
"#$
&
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑖)𝑡−1
/
𝐶𝑃𝑉 =%
!
"#$
&
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑖)𝑡−1
/

During this analysis, the researcher will be considering the value of the benefits and costs
over a 5-year period. With this assumption, we calculate the present value of benefits and costs
using the formula in (2) and apply the discount rate i of 3%, aligning with the standard 3% rate
of inflation (Levin et al., 2018). The benefit for this analysis is primarily to identify yearly
revenues for a single recording studio, which is rounded to $4,300,000 per year, according to
Capital Studios (n.d.), where three main recording studios generate approximately $13M of
revenue per year. Table 4 outlines the yearly calculation of total benefits for yearly recording
revenues for a single studio in this analysis.

(2)

76
Table 4: Recording Revenues (Total Benefits)
Recording Revenues (Total Benefits)

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Totals
$0 $4,300,000 $4,429,000 $4,561,870 $4,698,726 $4,839,688 $22,829,284

The costs for the proposed interventions are broken into equipment purchase required,
depreciated over 5 years. An analog console purchase total cost is approximately $800,000,
depreciated to $160,000, and yearly present value calculated with the 3% inflation rate used for
the benefits (Ramsey, 2019). The purchase price of a digital audio console and control surface
console are $190,000 and $295,000, respectively, depreciated and adjusted for present values
(“Soundcraft,” n.d., “Avid,” n.d.). Intervention labor for console integration is incurred in year
zero only, at the beginning of the project, but operational labor is incurred throughout the entire
5-year period. These ingredients (equipment), intervention, and operational labor costs for each
intervention are outlined in Table 5, 6, 7, and 8. Since operations labor is the same between all
interventions, but still a real cost for the analysis, it is helpful to look at total equipment cost and
intervention labor costs, as intervention labor costs are significantly different depending on the
type of equipment chosen for the intervention.

77
Table 5: Analog Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor
Analog Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Totals
Equipment 160,000 $164,800

$169,744

$174,836

$180,081

$185,484

$849,462

Intervention
labor
$25,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$25,000

Operations
labor
$591,552

$609,299

$627,578

$646,405

$665,797

$685,771

$3,140,630

Total costs $776,552 $774,099 $797,322 $821,241 $845,878 $871,255 $4,015,092

Table 6Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor
Digital Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Totals
Equipment $38,000 $39,140

$40,314

$41,524

$42,769

$44,052

$201,747

Intervention
labor

$285,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$285,000

Operations
labor

$591,552

$609,299

$627,578

$646,405

$665,797

$685,771

$3,140,630

Total costs $914,552

$648,439

$667,892

$687,928

$708,566

$729,823

$3,627,377

78
Table 7: Control Surface Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor
Control Surface Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Totals
Equipment $59,000

$60,770

$62,593

$64,471

$66,405

$68,397

$313,239

Intervention
labor

$285,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$285,000

Operations
labor

$591,552

$609,299

$627,578

$646,405

$665,797

$685,771

$3,140,630

Total costs $935,552

$670,069

$690,171

$710,876

$732,202

$754,168

$3,738,869

Table 8: Hybrid Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor
Hybrid Console Ingredients, Intervention Labor, and Operational Labor
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Totals
Equipment $236,000

$243,080

$250,160

$257,240

$265,618

$273,588

$1,525,686

Intervention
labor

$310,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$310,000

Operations
labor

$591,552

$609,299

$627,578

$646,405

$665,797

$685,771

$3,140,630

Total costs $1,137,552

$852,379

$877,738

$903,645

$931,415

$959,359

$5,662,088

79
One additional piece of this analysis is the benefit-to-cost ratio, which is simply the
present value of benefits divided by the present value of costs, as represented in (3). Table 9
shows the benefit-to-cost ratio for each proposed intervention. Levin et al. (2018) indicated any
intervention with a benefit-to-cost ratio greater than one (BCR > 1) is cost-feasible.

𝐵𝐶𝑅 =
𝐵𝑃𝑉
𝐶𝑃𝑉

One additional metric to use for analysis is the internal rate of return (IRR). Levin et al.
(2018) define this as “the rate of interest that equates the present value of benefits to the present
value of costs” (p. 225). IRR equates to the interest rate in a publicly available instrument, to
compare investing money into the proposed interventions. The question IRR helps answer is the
following: If you invest money into the market, would you receive a higher or lower return from
the proposed intervention, and what is that percentage amount of that return? Historically, long-
term investments have shown to return around 3%. So, this is a reasonable discount rate to use,
when calculating the IRR. Table 10 shows the IRR calculated for each intervention per year.

Table 9: Benefit to Cost Ratio for Each Intervention
Benefit to Cost Ratio for Each Intervention
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 Year Total
Analog 4.13 3.86 3.61 3.37 3.15 3.50
Digital 5.11 4.78 4.46 4.17 3.90 3.99
Control
surface
4.92 4.59 4.29 4.01 3.75 3.84
Hybrid 3.67 3.43 3.21 3.00 2.80 2.84

(3)

80
Table 10: Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Analog 341%

427%

441%

443%

444%

Digital 288%

372%

387%

390%

390%

Control
surface
277%

361%

376%

379%

380%

Hybrid 194% 275% 292% 296% 297%

One additional component to IRR is a so-called break-even point, where the
intervention’s “present value benefits equal the present value costs within a given period of time”
(Levin et al., 2018, p. 227). Analyzing all three of our interventions, every intervention will
break even somewhere in the second year of the intervention, meaning that the present value of
benefits will equal, and then surpass, the total present value of costs for the intervention.
Cost-Benefit Analysis Results
The primary purpose of this analysis is to analyze and identify mitigating technology
obsolescence to determine the appropriate intervention to replace an obsolete technology. The
interventions include options for replacing obsolete analog technology with (a) newer analog
audio technology; (b) digital audio technology; (c) control surface audio technology; or (d) some
analog and control surface hybrid. The single greatest risk to this cost-benefit analysis is the
reliability of the revenues generated (benefits) in the 5-year span of the intervention plan. Future
performance is often based on past-results, and if a major economic incident were to appear,

81
such as a global pandemic, this would certainly affect commercial transactions, the revenue
stream, and predictability of the plan presented (Majumder & Giri, 2020).
The costs and benefits presented in this analysis are primarily split into equipment costs,
intervention labor costs during and operation labor costs after the intervention, in a 5-year
analysis period. Looking at the benefit-to-cost ratio, as well as the IRR for each intervention, as
well as the prediction that the break-even Point for all interventions will be in the second year of
each choice, it appears that any of the four interventions would be a reasonable choice from an
economic point of view. In terms of which intervention to execute, this study conducted with the
usual clients of the studio is intended to help inform management that either a purely analog or a
hybrid technology is the type they would prefer to see implemented in order to replace the
obsolete and failing technology in the studio.
Limitations and Delimitations
In the nature of research and inquiry are elements of limitations and delimitations.
Limitations are weaknesses outside of the control of the researcher. Delimitations are choices
made by the researcher which have ramifications on the data collected. One limitation of the
present study is truthfulness of the respondents, especially in light of social desirability, or the
desire to look good in the eyes of the researcher. Social desirability is especially challenging in
research (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). In this context, it is possible that respondents responded
in ways incongruent with how they actually felt, and instead they responded in a way they
thought the researcher wanted them to respond. A delimitation to this study is related to
generalizability. This study was conducted at one recording studio in Los Angeles, so the
findings may not be generalizable to other studios or cities. The researcher narrowly focused on
mixers in Los Angeles with experience specifically in one type of studio.

82
Recommendations for Future Research
This study uses a very narrow scope, focusing on the needs and considerations of scoring
mixers in their day-to-day work. Specific quantitative data collection about certain elements
presented is outside the scope of this study, but worthy of future research. This includes a study
on whether professionals can differentiate between audio quality of higher sample rates, such as
384 kHz versus 192 kHz sampling rate. The current study also presented several emerging audio
over IP technologies (e.g., DANTE, AES 67). Future research is in order to gather both
quantitative and qualitative data about the quality of each digital format, and if there is a
perceived quality difference between the formats available, including a variety of sample rates
for each format. On a similar note, there is a variety of manufacturers who manufacture
components that support these various formats. Future qualitative research into the experience
and perceived quality of the different manufacturers’ products is valuable to the endeavor.
On the qualitative front, future research may also include additional studies about the
difference in perceived values between management (decision makers), clients (customers), and
front-line workers. There is value in collecting data from one or both perspectives to present a
position for making data-driven decision-making that will play a role in business sustainability.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to gather feedback from sound mixers regarding the critical
needs and considerations for mitigating technology obsolescence. Specifically, this study sought
to learn more about these stakeholder’s perceptions regarding analog audio, digital audio, audio
quality, workflow flexibility, and how the Studio might balance these elements to remain viable
as a creative business enterprise. This study will inform future decisions about whether to

83
purchase new analog equipment to replace failing equipment, or whether to transition to a partial
or entirely digital audio version of a recording studio.
Ultimately, this study recognized that the active working scoring mixers prefer to work
utilizing analog audio technology in the scoring console. Even when it includes a hybrid model,
analog continues to be the preferred technology choice for the recording sessions. This study is
also only the beginning of the conversation between stakeholders, management, and clients, in
terms of decisions about what future technology to purchase and integrate into the next iteration
of a major scoring stage. Other scoring stages on the west coast, and around the world, all face
the same dilemma at one point or another: When the technology is beginning to fail, what do we
do next? And when do we do it? The viable recommendations presented in this study serve as
reasonable launching points for the next phase of conversations about what to do next, when to
execute an intervention, and whether it is a sustainable way to carry the recording business for
decades to come.

84
References
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H., & Abubakar, M. M. (2015). Ontology, epistemology
and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the research
philosophical misconception. Proceedings of the Academic Conference: Mediterranean
Publications and Research International on New Direction and Uncommon, 2(1).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aliyu-Aliyu-
2/publication/318721927_ontology_epistemology_and_axiology_in_quantitative_and_qu
alitative_research_elucidation_of_the_research_philosophical_misconception/links/5979
8097aca27203ecc63de3/ontology-epistemology-and-axiology-in-quantitative-and-
qualitative-research-elucidation-of-the-research-philosophical-misconception.pdf
Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2015). A unified framework for incorporating decision making into
explanations of business failure. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(7), 1341–
1357. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2015-0085
Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2016). Competing technologies, competing forces: The rise and fall of
the floppy disk, 1971-2010. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 107(June),
121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.019
Audio Engineering Society. (2018). AES67-2018: AES standard for audio applications of
networks – High-performance streaming audio-over-IP interoperability.
https://www.aes.org/publications/standards/search.cfm?docID=96
Audio Engineering Society. (2020). AE10-2020: AES Recommended Practice for Digital Audio
Engineering – Serial Multichannel Audio Digital Interface (MADI).
https://www.aes.org/publications/standards/search.cfm?docID=17

85
Avid S6L-48D-CS. (n.d.). Full Compass. https://www.fullcompass.com/prod/601862-avid-s6l-
48d-cs-s6l-48d-control-surface-9935-72560-00
Baert L., Theunissen L., Vergult G. (1992). Digital audio and compact disc technology (2
nd
ed.).
Elsevier.
Bartels, B., Ermel, U., Pecht, M., Sandborn, P.A. (2012). Strategies to the prediction, mitigation
and management of product obsolescence. Wiley.
Borgonovo, E., Marseguerra, M., & Zio, E. (2000). A Monte Carlo methodological approach to
plant availability modeling with maintenance, aging and obsolescence. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 67(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-
8320(99)00046-0
Bouillot, N., Cohen, E., Cooperstock, J. R., Floros, A., Fonseca, N., Foss, R., Goodman, M.,
Grant, J., Gross, K., Harris, S., Harshbarger, B., Heyraud, J., Jonsson, L., Narus, J., Page,
M., Snook, T., Tanaka, A., Trieger, J., & Zanghieri, U. (2009). AES white paper: Best
practices in network audio. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 57(9), 729–741.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14839
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Research
design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Sage.
Capital Studios. (n.d.). Owler. https://www.owler.com/company/capitolstudios
Carroll, L. S. L. (2017). A comprehensive definition of technology from an ethological
perspective. Social Sciences, 6(4), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6040126
Clavareau, J., & Labeau, P.-E. (2009). Maintenance and replacement policies under
technological obsolescence. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94(2), 370–381.
https://doi. Org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.033

86
Coleman, M. (2005). Playback: from the Victrola to MP3, 100 years of music, machines, and
money. Da Capo Press.
Cooper, T. (2004). Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attitudes to product
obsolescence. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27(December), 421–449.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-004-2284-6
Cooper, J., & Harrison, D. M. (2001). The social organization of audio piracy on the Internet.
Media, Culture & Society, 23(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344301023001004
Crecraft, D., & Gergely S. (2002). Analog electronics: Circuits, systems and signal processing
(1
st
ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5
th
ed.). SAGE.
Devereaux, E. (2010). Obsolescence: A systems engineering and management approach for
complex systems [Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/59233
Digital Audio Workstations: improved workflow across the board. (2014). The Mix (Berkeley,
Calif.), 38(3), 36–.
Dogramaci, A., & Fraiman, N. M. (2004). Replacement decisions with maintenance under
uncertainty: An imbedded optimal control model. Operations Research, 52(5), 785–794.
https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1040.0133
Downes, K. (2010). “Perfect sound forever”: Innovation, aesthetics, and the re-making of
compact disc playback. Technology and Culture, 51(2), 305–331,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40647101

87
Duretec, K., & Becker, C. (2017). Format technology lifecycle analysis. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(10): 2484-2500.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23881
Ferrofish A32 32 x 32 AD/DA, MADI & ADAT Converter. (n.d.).Sweetwater.
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/A32—ferrofish-a32-32-by-32-ad-da-madi-and-
adat-converter
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2
nd
ed.). SAGE.
Ginn, M. L. (2006). An integral approach to information technology diffusion: Innovation in the
product life cycles of a large technology company. Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.6
International Working Conference, 206, 101–108.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm:978-0-387-34410-2/1.pdf
Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–
26. https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Grotticelli, M. (2010). Audio vendors going MADI. tvtech.
https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/audio-vendors-going-madi
Hackbarth, D., Mathews, R., & Robinson, D. (2014). Capital structure, product market
dynamics, and the boundaries of the firm. Management Science, 60(12), 2971–2993.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2008

88
Holzinger, A., & Hildebrand, A. (2011). Realtime linear audio distribution over networks: A
comparison of layer 2 and 3 solutions using the example of ethernet AVB and
RAVENNA. AES E-Library of the Audio Engineering Society. https://www.aes.org/e-
lib/browse.cfm?elib=16147
How Stuff Works. (2000). How are the Voyager spacecraft able to transmit radio messages so
far? https://science.howstuffworks.com/question431.htm
Jacobsson, T. J. (2018). Photoelectrochemical water splitting: An idea heading towards
obsolescence? Energy and Environmental Science, 2018(8), 1977–1979.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EE00772A
Josias, C. L. (2009). Hedging future uncertainty: A framework for obsolescence prediction,
proactive mitigation and management (Publication No. 1896) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts Amherst]. https://doi.org/10.7275/5645788
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/48
Kabal, P. (2017). Audio file format specifications. McGill Engineering, Telecommunications &
Signal Processing Laboratory. http://www-
mmsp.ece.mcgill.ca/Documents/AudioFormats/WAVE/WAVE.html
Larkin, G. (2019). Post-production and the invisible revolution of filmmaking: From the silent
era to synchronized sound (1st ed.). Routledge.
Levin, H. M., McEwan, P. J., Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., & Shand, R. (2018). Economic
evaluation in education: Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analysis (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Magron P., & Virtanen T. (2020). Online spectrogram inversion for low-latency audio source
separation. IEEE signal processing letters, 27, 306–310, doi: 10.1109/LSP.2020.2970310

89
Majumder, B., & Giri, D. (2020). Coronavirus and force majeure: A critical study (liability of a
party affected by the coronavirus outbreak in a commercial transaction). Journal of
Maritime Law and Commerce, 51(1), 51–63.
Matinaro, V. & Liu, Y. (2015). Virtual design and construction: Innovation process and
diffusion in Finnish construction business. International Journal of Innovation and
Learning, 18(2), 133–150, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2015.070869
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Mellal, M. A. (2020). Obsolescence – A review of the literature. Technology in Society,
63(101347). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101347
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Wiley.
Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of educational (in-
)equity. In A. Diller, B. Houston, K. P. Morgan, & M. Ayim (Eds.), The gender question
in education: Theory, pedagogy, and politics (1st ed., pp. 105–122). Routledge.
Motes-Rodrigo, A., Majlesi, P., Pickering, T. R., Laska, M., Axelsen, H., Minchin, T. C., Tennie,
C., & Hernandez-Aguilar, R. A. (2019). Chimpanzee extractive foraging with excavating
tools: Experimental modeling of the origins of human technology. PloS One, 14(5),
e0215644, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215644
Newbury, J. & Miller, W. (1999). Potential communication services using power line carriers
and broadband integrated services digital network. IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, 14(4), 1197–1201, https://doi.org/10.1109/61.796206

90
Novakova, L. (2020). The impact of technology development on the future of the labour market
in the Slovak Republic. Technology in Society, 62(101256),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101256
Numark bids to acquire Alesis out of chapter 11. (Industry Forefront). (2001). Music
Trades, 149(5), 26–26.
Ollé, A., Sala, R., Pawlik, A., Longo, L., Skakun, N., & Gibaja, J. (2017). New contributions to
the functional analysis of prehistoric tools. Quaternary International, 427(Part B), 2–5,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.01.037
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Pro Tools. (2019). Avid, https://cdn-www.avid.com/-/media/avid/files/products-pdf/pro-tools-
mtrx/protools_mtrx_ds_a4.pdf
Ramsey, C. (2019, March 14). Ever wondered what the most expensive audio equipment in the
world looks like? Audio Media International, https://audiomediainternational.com/ever-
wondered-what-the-most-expensive-audio-equipment-in-the-world-looks-like/
Ravichandran, T., Han, S., & Mithas, S. (2017). Mitigating diminishing returns to R&D: The
role of information technology in innovation. Information Systems Research, 28(4), 812–
827, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0717
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological (2nd ed.). SAGE.
RME MADI Router. (n.d.). Vintage King, https://vintageking.com/rme-madi-router
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions (1st ed.). SAGE.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). Free Press.

91
Romero Rojo, F. J., Roy, R., & Shehab, E. (2010). Obsolescence management for long-life
contracts: state of the art and future trends. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 49(9), 1235–1250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2471-
3
Rumsey, F. (2017). Rolling out AES67. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 65(1/2), 148–
151. http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18551
Rumsey, F. (2021). Audio over IP: A guide from the summit through the jungle, Journal of
Audio Engineering Society, 69(4), 276–280, http://www.aes.org/e-
lib/browse.cfm?elib=21034
Rupert Neve Designs RMP-D8 8-channel Microphone Preamp. (n.d.). Sweetwater.
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/RMPD8--rupert-neve-designs-rmp-d8-dante-
remote-control-microphone-preamp
Sandborn, P. (2015). Managing obsolescence risk. In L. Redding & R. Roy (Eds.), Through-life
engineering services: Motivation, theory, and practice (pp. 341–357). Springer.
Sasidhar, J., Muthu, D., Venkatasubramanian, C., & Ramakrishnan, K. (2017). A computer
based approach for material, manpower and equipment management in the construction
projects. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 80(1), 1–10,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/80/1/012049
Schochetman, I. E., & Smith, R. L. (2007). Infinite horizon optimality criteria for equipment
replacement under technological change. Operations Research Letters, 35(4), 485–492,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2006.10.001
Slide Talk video: Learn this! Diffusion of innovations (2012). YouTube, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_Sh_MY0A44

92
Smeets, R., & Bosker, E. M. (2011). Leaders, laggards and technology seeking strategies.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 80(3), 481–497,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.05.003
Soundcraft VI3000. (n.d.). Full Compass, https://www.fullcompass.com/prod/258220-
soundcraft-vi3000-96-channel-compact-digital-mixer-with-36-faders
Sun, J., & Xi, L. (2011). Optimal maintenance policy for degrading manufacturing systems using
long-term average cost criterion. Production Planning and Control, 22(2), 124–136,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537281003730354
Tuck, & Yang, K. W. (2014). Youth Resistance Research and Theories of Change. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203585078
Wages, Contracts, and Holidays (n.d.). Motion Picture Editors Guild.
https://www.editorsguild.com/Wages-and-Contracts
Walsh, K. (2011). Dante and AVB networking. Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society
UK 24th Conference: The Ins & Outs of Audio. http://www.aes.org/e-
lib/browse.cfm?elib=17313
Watkinson, J. (2002). An introduction to digital audio (2nd ed.). Focal Press.
Williams, W. (n.d.). ISDN in your voice over home recording studio: Will ISDN enhance your
voice over job opportunities? Aliso Creek Productions, from https://alisocreek.net/vo-
articles/ISDN-for-voice-over.html
Zheng, L. (2011). Knowledge representation and decision support for managing product
obsolescence [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Virginia].
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/30178/Zheng_L_D_2011.pdf?seque
nce=1&isAllowed=y

93
Zhu, X., & Zolkiewski, J. (2015). Exploring service failure in a business-to-business context.
Journal of Services Marketing, 29(5), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2014-
0055

94
Appendix A: Definitions
Several key terms and concepts are defined here for clarity in this line of inquiry.
● Technology obsolescence refers to “[a] component becomes obsolete when the
technology that defines it is no longer implemented and therefore the component
becomes no longer available from stock of own spares, procurable or produced by its
supplier or manufacturer” (Romero Rojo, 2010, p. 1235).
● Audio latency is “the delay that occurs between one event and another. In
workstations the term latency is usually used to describe the delay between inputs and
outputs of the audio hardware” (Rumsey, 2013, sect. 3.6). In addition to simply
defining latency, its effects to humans as “significant discomfort can be experienced
by listeners for delays exceeding 20 ms” (Magron & Virtanen, 2020, p. 306).
● Digital-to-analog converter (D/A or DAC) is defined as an electrical component
where digital signals are “converted back to their analog equivalent to reproduce the
sound of the original” (Crecraft, 2002, p. 157).
● The function of an analog-to-digital converter (A/D or ADC) is to “convert the analog
input signal to a frequency or a set of pulses whose time is measured to provide a
representative digital output” (Baert et al., 1992, p. 29).
● Audio sampling rate is described in relation to an analog signal:
By definition, an analog signal varies continuously with time. To enable it to be
converted into a digital signal, it is necessary that the signal is first sampled, i.e.,
at certain points in time a sample of the input value must be taken. (Baert et al.,
1992, p. 29)

95
● Diffusion theory is commonly described as a theory that “focuses on characterizing
observable behaviors of adoption” (Duretec & Becker, 2017, p. 4).

96
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
1. How long have you worked with The Studio? How long have you been a sound
mixer?
2. When you think about the equipment at the Studio, what are your thoughts regarding
the degree to which it needs to be updated?
a. What updates would you make to the existing system?
3. How often would you say you experience technology failures when you use the
equipment at The Studio?
a. What types of failures do you typically experience?
b. To what extent have you been able to mitigate those failures? What have you
done?
c. Can you walk me through a recent technology failure? What happened?
d. In your opinion, what could have been done prior to your recording session to
prevent the failure experience?
4. In your opinion, how does The Studio compare to other facilities you’ve worked in?
a. Equipment?
b. Resources?
c. Responsiveness of technical support staff?
5. What are the most common technology failures, due to out of date or old equipment,
across all studios you have worked in the past year?
6. What was the last major upgrade or update you made to your own gear?
a. What was the primary reason why you made that update?

97
7. What major updates or upgrades do you foresee needing to make in the next year or
two?
a. What are the primary reasons why you may need to make those updates?
8. When a component of your own gear/equipment fails, how do you decide whether to
replace it or to repair it?
a. What kinds of components would you be most likely to replace?
b. What kinds of components would you be most likely to repair?
9. What are your “favorite” Mic Pres?
10. What are your “favorite” A/D converters?
11. What type of reverbs do you prefer (analog, plug-ins)?
a. If you use plug-ins, to what degree do you think they introduce significant
latency during tracking?
b. How important do you think this is to your work? To your clients?
12. What is the minimum and preferred audio sample rate for recording?
a. What is your preferred sample rate to operate (48k, 96k, 192k, 384k)?
13. Which mixing console type do you prefer in scoring (analog, digital, control surface,
hybrid)?
a. What are the primary reasons why you prefer that mixing console type?
b. What are the strengths of that mixing console type compared to others?
c. What are the downsides?
14. What type of control surface(s) have you used in a “live” or “tracking” session?
15. Have you used an S6 in a live recording session before?
a. What was your experience like?

98
b. Would you recommend an S6
16. How important is the feature of multitrack bussing to your workflow?
17. How many multitrack busses would you expect to use in a tracking session? (24, 48,
96, 192+)
18. How important is Stem recording? How many of each would you expect to use?
19. How many multichannel stems would you expect to use in a tracking session? (24,
48, 96, 192+)
20. How important is it to bring your automation with you after the recording? Or are
stems “good enough?”
21. On a scale of 1-10, with one being the least satisfied, and 10 being the most
satisfied…
a. how satisfied would you be with a new 100% Analog Audio mixing console in
the scoring control room?
b. how satisfied would you be with a new 100% Digital Audio mixing console in
the scoring control room?
c. how satisfied would you be with a new 100% control surface console in the
scoring control room to control the main recorder?
d. how satisfied would you be with a new 100% control surface console in the
scoring control room used ONLY as a mixer (NO contact with the main
recorder)?
e. how satisfied would you be with a new Hybrid mixing console in the scoring
control room (Analog audio + small control surface side-car)?

99
22. If you were going to purchase a new mixing console for The Studio, which
make/model of mixing console would you choose?

100
Appendix C: Ethics
This study was submitted to, and only conducted after approval from the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participants understand that their point of
view is important, and they may opt-out at any point. The instruments will be built in such a way
that participant identity will be confidential, even to the researchers. This is particularly
important, and special care will be taken to ensure that participant’s data is not available to their
supervisors, as some supervisors may be recruited for the study.
This research serves the post-production community and affects ancillary or support staff
for facilities serving the broader media industry. The purpose of the research is to build
awareness about issues that connect technology to success in business as well as the art of media
creation. Artists and technicians all use technology as tools to do their work. This study will help
staff and leaders reflect on their relationship to the tools, the art, and the work they perform to
raise their consciousness and realization that their voice and work matters. In terms of who might
be harmed, direct participants may be harmed on two accounts, one direct, one long-term.
Clearly, if participant identities are linked to their answers to the questions, this may raise issues
of integrity and loyalty, especially if those connections are discovered or revealed to staff
supervisors involved in the study. Special care will be taken to anonymize the responses, so that
even the researchers are not aware of the identity of the respondents. Long-term, if the research
conclusions are inaccurate, or riddled with errors, people who read the published results may use
the research as part of their decision-making process about when to purchase and integrate
technology in the future. Those decisions may have lasting effects on business viability for years
to come. Special care will be taken to ensure the conclusions are based on science, rigor,

101
integrity, and honesty, so that any audience reading the findings will have the most accurate and
up to date data available, when making their own decisions about their business.
Issues of bias, power, and positionality are important to address, document, and mitigate
in any research project, as these elements may affect both the raw data collected, as well as
analysis of the data. One of the principal issues of positionality for this project is the assumption
by the researcher that technology obsolescence is truly a problem in the organization in focus,
and that a change initiative is required to mitigate the effects of obsolescence. This may steer the
researcher in the interviews to finding problems, where there may not be any. It is important for
the interviewer(s) to solicit feedback (data) from interview subjects, without injecting any sort of
bias or assumptions onto the interview subjects. This also minimizes the problem of answer
related errors and respondent reliability (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
The interviewer is also in a position of power to influence hiring decisions for the
interview subjects. In addition, the community from which the sample is recruited is a very small
close-knit group, so anonymity and safety of the respondent’s interview answers are critical. If
the respondents ever feel like their answers may be used against them for hiring decisions in the
future, this may cause major issues in their answers, and validity of the data collected. This may
lead to social desirability bias, which can “make respondents reluctant to tell the truth about any
behaviors or attitudes that could be perceived by others as negative or unflattering” (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019, p. 6). To mitigate these risks, the researcher explained the procedures used to
anonymize the interviews, as well as data storage policies including encrypting the data and
storage on local drives only available to the researcher. Also, special care was taken when
writing the interview questions, as well as conducting the interview to create a safe space,
without bias and assumptions on the part of the researcher.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

Military spouses, military lifestyle, and the concept of thriving

PDF

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program

PDF

Training qualified rural area teachers in Malawi using synchronous virtual learning (SVL) information and communication technologies (ICTs) platforms

PDF

Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

PDF

Financial inequity and the impact of acquiring technology competency within the emergency medical service community

PDF

Increasing representation of women in executive technology leadership roles

PDF

Indonesian teachers' adoption of technology in the K-12 classroom: a TAM-based quantitative study

PDF

Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida

PDF

Multi-tiered system of supports to address significant disproportionality in special education

PDF

A culture of care in elementary schools to impact Black student academic achievement: a case study

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

Asset Metadata

Creator Rettig, Erin Michael (author)

Core Title Examining technology obsolescence in music scoring studios

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 09/17/2022

Defense Date 08/18/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag analog audio,audio recording,control surface,DAW,digital audio,digital audio workstation,film score,media,music,OAI-PMH Harvest,postproduction,Pro Tools,Recording,scoring,scoring mixer,scoring stage,sound,technology,technology obsolescence

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email erin.rettig@gmail.com,erin.rettig@mac.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111992646

Unique identifier UC111992646

Legacy Identifier etd-RettigErin-11208

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rettig, Erin Michael

Type texts

Source 20220917-usctheses-batch-980 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu