Audio engineer is an art or science?

[dasdoing]

The clarity of the lyric and the passion of the music are what's most important to me, and it's really easy to put those values out of sight and just mix until they're not there any more. For example, I did 91 mixes of 'Billie Jean', and finally Quincy said 'Let's go back and listen to mix number two.' And we did, and it blew us all away! I had overmixed that song right into the pooper, so the mix that went onto the record was mix number two.

Bruce Swedien: Recording Michael Jackson

Bruce Swedien has been the engineer of choice for Michael Jackson and his producer Quincy Jones, among many others. In a rare interview, he lays bare the techniques behind some of the superstars biggest hits.

www.soundonsound.com

 

[Multicore]

Art cannot exist without science. All artists need a degree of knowledge to fully grasp the techniques they use to create their art. Even if that knowledge is not sistematic or acquired with a degree, it is necessary.

I'm not sure about your first sentence. Knowledge comes in many kinds that are not in themselves scientific or easily validated by scientific inquiry. Somebody could compose a romantic sonnet without reference to any knowledge ever touched by science. Finding someone in the modern world so naive of science might be tricky but in principle this seems true enough for me.

 

[Vacceo]

I'm not sure about your first sentence. Knowledge comes in many kinds that are not in themselves scientific or easily validated by scientific inquiry. Somebody could compose a romantic sonnet without reference to any knowledge ever touched by science. Finding someone in the modern world so naive of science might be tricky but in principle this seems true enough for me.

To create music you need a certain, even if very coarse and asystematic, understanding of mathematics.

 

[Punter]

I've always been reluctant to use the term "Engineer" for what is more accurately a "Panel Operator". That said, I don't want to diminish the role of the Panel Op. As far as the poll goes, I lean more towards "Art" as it has been my experience that most "Sound Engineers" are ranked primarily by their ability to craft a collection of recorded sounds into a cohesive mix. Sure, a deep practical knowledge of the equipment is essential but most Sound Engineers would not be able to wire a studio or accomplish board level repairs on their equipment, that's a job for Technicians and Electronics Engineers.

 

[sofrep811]

ART, IMHO.

 

[NTK]

Is setting this up work of "audio engineers"? If so, how much of it is science and how much of it is art?

 

[Punter]

Is setting this up work of "audio engineers"? If so, how much of it is science and how much of it is art?

Roadies and Techs set that stage up

 

[Geert]

Is setting this up work of "audio engineers"?

I and a lot of my collaegues did. A lot of sound engineers are pretty polyvalent. Certainly in the live business the business expects this. Sometimes engineers only design and setup the system, sometimes they only tune the system, sometimes they also operate it, sometimes they only do the mixing (some are specialised in front of house mixing, others in monitor mixing). And some also do repairs or design and build custom solutions.

 

[dfuller]

Little of this, little of that.

 

[Multicore]

To create music you need a certain, even if very coarse and asystematic, understanding of mathematics.

I believe there are many musicians now and have been many more in the past with none.

Anyway, what do you mean by an asystematic understanding of mathematics? To my understanding, mathematics is a formal language for reasoning about the specific kinds of tautology that the language is able to express.

Some features of music, e.g. harmony, rhythm, pitch intervals have been approximately represented in mathematical systems that can be analyzed and manipulated but such modeling is, I believe, outside of the practice of music itself and not necessary to it. Math is added on to music by those who choose to or have to because of how they are taught. (And some musicians have incorporated math into their creative process but this is as unessential to music itself as incorporating Schiller poems.)

Remember that while "Western" music has theory (of sorts*) that's taught to most pupils, that's not so in all music traditions. For example, musicians in Hindustani music, a tradition that's identified as a singular real thing for over 1000 years, learn without theory(**). Also look at how a number of expert scholars, skilled in mathematics, have tried to model that music and have been unable to get very far. They can't even agree how many pitches are involved (which suggests to me that trying to count them is asking the wrong question).

(*) It has some uses, principally to allow practitioners to communicate more efficiently, but musical creativity, it seems, usually involves breaking its rules, i.e. doing things the theory can't usefully say anything about.

(**) A TV series from 1992 has these two segments I cued up for you. The whole thing is really wonderful and worth a look for anyone who cares about music. Here the teaching process is stated as: imitation, repetition, exploration. If there is a unifying theory of human musical traditions, I guess that's closer to it than mathematics.
- One

- Two

 

[Sokel]

The highest expression of engineering is to make the tools that other engineers use.
Something like this needs high skill,fantasy,creativity,predictability,practice,even empathy.
From that point of view is both,science is about revolution,inovation on the other hand is pure art in it's best expression.

 

[kongwee]

Some features of music, e.g. harmony, rhythm, pitch intervals have been approximately represented in mathematical systems that can be analyzed and manipulated but such modeling is, I believe, outside of the practice of music itself and not necessary to it. Math is added on to music by those who choose to or have to because of how they are taught. (And some musicians have incorporated math into their creative process but this is as unessential to music itself as incorporating Schiller poems.)

Remember that while "Western" music has theory (of sorts*) that's taught to most pupils, that's not so in all music traditions. For example, musicians in Hindustani music, a tradition that's identified as a singular real thing for over 1000 years, learn without theory(**). Also look at how a number of expert scholars, skilled in mathematics, have tried to model that music and have been unable to get very far. They can't even agree how many pitches are involved (which suggests to me that trying to count them is asking the wrong question).

Just to add, China Bian Zhong exist for at least 2400 years. A percussion metal bell set musical instrument being used as volume measurement. Every bell has a volume to make a note or pitch, the Chinese use it for musical leisure and standard volume measurement. Marquis Yi set was unearth and had it's own 12 notes system.

 

[Jim Shaw]

Doesn't a musician have to have a technical understanding of their instruments to make it sound they way they want to or to play in a band . I think once they understand that they then could do whatever they want. I think a little of both for them too.

Only a very superficial technical understanding of an instrument is needed to be a musician, sufficient to take advantage of an instrument's abilities while avoiding detracting issues. I have played the piano and pipe organ for many decades, yet I have no ability to build one nor voice or tune it, nor any desire to. I don't know a single virtuosic oboe player who could or would make his own oboe, let alone build it to sound like a good oboe. And so on...

But here's where science and engineering come to help: modern instruments benefit greatly from advances in material and manufacturing science.

Science and art are complementary but not similar practices. But both may be the province of one person.

 

[Multicore]

Just to add, China Bian Zhong exist for at least 2400 years. A percussion metal bell set musical instrument being used as volume measurement. Every bell has a volume to make a note or pitch, the Chinese use it for musical leisure and standard volume measurement. Marquis Yi set was unearth and had it's own 12 notes system.

Yes, just try to imagine the variety of distinct musical traditions that no longer exist and for which we have no written history. It's hard. Archeology is slowly uncovering its hints at the diversity of cultures (I was reading Graeber and Wengrow's Dawn of Everything recently). And at the same time we believe music is a human universal. So I infer that there have been many.

At the same time, in the contemporary academy (itself dominated by Western culture) music theoreticians are able to elaborate exquisite theories that say very little about how music sounds or how it makes you feel. (It's not the only academic field where the virtue of theory increases with its abstraction rather than its predictive power. I'm thinking of economics, for example.) Mathematics may have applications in describing music but I don't think music is dependent on mathematics unless we choose to make it so.

 

[Multicore]

Doesn't a musician have to have a technical understanding of their instruments to make it sound they way they want to or to play in a band.

Yes, absolutely.

But technical and scientific are distinct concepts. Technical refers to technique, which can be formal, elaborate, precise and even scientific but can also be ad hoc, simple, fluid, intuitive. I'm not just referring to music performance or recording technique. Engineers and practitioners of any of the other arts and crafts in general have their techniques that they apply to their work too.

Scientific otoh is a strictly defined adjective. If you are careful to conduct an investigation rigorously applying its method then what you did is scientific. Otherwise not, in which case it is unscientific while it may still be technical and might even be very good musical, recording or engineering technical practice. (And calling something unscientific doesn't need to always be an insult. Shouldn't be, imo.)

I think once they understand that they then could do whatever they want.

Most musicians I know are aware of personal limits they wish they could transcend. Some stuff is hard.

 

[Multicore]

Roadies and Techs set that stage up

It's amazing and frightening at the same time, isn't it?

One the one hand, WOW! Like the Eiffel Tower or Fourth Rail Bridge must have seemed when they were new.

On the other, there's something wrong with this. Something like the teacher to student ratio. Live music should involve two way communication. When it gets this big it's broadcasting plus the WOW! I mentioned.

 

[dfuller]

At the same time, in the contemporary academy (itself dominated by Western culture) music theoreticians are able to elaborate exquisite theories that say very little about how music sounds or how it makes you feel. (It's not the only academic field where the virtue of theory increases with its abstraction rather than its predictive power. I'm thinking of economics, for example.) Mathematics may have applications in describing music but I don't think music is dependent on mathematics unless we choose to make it so.

The best way I've heard to describe music theory is "tools to get yourself out of a creative corner".

 

[sarumbear]

I will call it is art. Audio engineer in general term, record, mix and sell music/sound. You just part of the process.
Of course, your product is bound by tools defined by science.
What is you understanding of audio engineering?

I'm not asking for right or wrong, but your understanding.

I think first the term should be defined as unlike many other engineering types, audio engineer is a loose term. Even Wikipedia is unsure what it means.

 

[krabapple]

What you're calling 'audio engineers' I'd call 'sound engineers' generally, and specifically: recording, mixing, mastering, and live sound 'engineers'. People who manipulate audio signals, typically using a board (real or virtual).

'Audio engineers' are people who design and build audio recording, production, and playback hardware (and software).

Acousticians are a special category.

 

[sarumbear]

What you're calling 'audio engineers' I'd call 'sound engineers' generally, and specifically: recording, mixing, mastering, and live sound 'engineers'. People who manipulate audio signals, typically using a board (real or virtual).

Those two terms are interchangible.

'Audio engineers' are people who design and build audio recording, production, and playback hardware (and software).

I know a lot of engineers who design an audio device one month, a radio device the next and a car engine controller the other. An electronics engineer is who design electronic circuits. You can be specialised on one area but you are still an EE. Linkwitz was an RF engineer for instance.

Acousticians are a special category.

Agreed, it is part of architecture. I have a degree on acoustics and it is a B.A., where the 'A' for art. I also have a B.Sc. and a M.Sc. on EE, where the 'Sc' is for science.