ASR burning the wrong witches?

[Shadrach]

That hasn't been my experience. Almost every recording "engineer" I know got into it via music, myself included, as not-very-successful musicians, or intending musicians, or via other positions on the periphery of the music scene. Absolutely none of them have science or engineering degrees. Very few have degrees at all. One was a medical doctor who changed careers. Some of the younger or more recent have trade college or night school technical qualifications.

There is absolutely no subjective/objective divide either side of the control room window. Literally everything a recording "engineer" does is about taste, preference, fudge and kludge. "Art" has an uncertain definition for sure, but studio work sure ain't "science".

Possibly the people you're thinking of are the maintenance technicians, who install things, fix things, and check new things for spec when they arrive. We call them "oily rags", and a huge proportion of them are named Brian. No one knows why.

Honestly, the easiest way to get this straight is to make recordings yourself.

Yes, that's probably it. The people I know and worked with who went to college and got their degrees are probably called Brian and check new things for spec.
I'm probably called Brian as well.
I don't know where you're from, or what you do, but to call yourself an engineer in Europe one generally needs a degree in some science/engineering related subject.
The lack of qualifications might account for some of the recording I find most offensive. It seems that anyone with a console is a recording engineer these days

 

[dfuller]

Possibly the people you're thinking of are the maintenance technicians, who install things, fix things, and check new things for spec when they arrive. We call them "oily rags", and a huge proportion of them are named Brian. No one knows why.

Burt and Andrew, too...

Yes, that's probably it. The people I know and worked with who went to college and got their degrees are probably called Brian and check new things for spec.
I'm probably called Brian as well.
I don't know where your from, or what you do, but to call yourself an engineer in Europe one generally needs a degree in some science/engineering related subject.
The lack of qualifications might account for some of the recording I find most offensive. It seems that anyone with a console is a recording engineer these days

Why do you find it offensive, though? Recording stuff in the most "objectively correct" way is almost always the wrong choice. I say this from experience. I've recorded piano in about every environment you can think of (anything from an empty university classroom to a world-class scoring stage), and it was always a matter of what fit the music more than whatever it was that we were "supposed to do".

The BBC and others did that whole by-the-book thing, and that sound straight up didn't work for this newfangled stuff called rock and roll. It was at that point that you had guys like George Martin and his engineer Geoff Emerick almost literally tear up the rule book and say "How can we get this sound?". Putting mics close to a drum kit was quite literally against the rules in the early 60s. They did it anyway because they wanted a more direct drum sound.

Also - more people know how stuff works these days than in years past.

 

[Zensō]

I’m having trouble believing I’m on a science based forum where objectivity and measurements are supposed to reign arguing with other contributors whether making recordings is an art, or an engineering skill. It’s a bit like some of the arguments I’ve had on subjectivist forum with contributors who insist that designing truly audiophile quality amplifiers is an art. Priceless.

So now mixing and mastering music is equivalent to designing amplifiers? Priceless indeed.

 

[Shadrach]

I think you are mixing some things up here. We can all agree on the "science" and measurements and objective understanding of how gear works.

But you have been making some non-technical claims about "art," the role of engineering in music production, and what one "ought" to push for etc. We don't even have to mention science to point out some of those claims don't make sense.





I'm not sure where you got that, but if it helps: I work in pro audio (film/TV) and know and work with plenty of engineers for both film and music (and I do recordings myself). I've also been a musician who has recorded in professional studies, I have many musician friends and I've been in the studio sessions with them.

Of course there is engineering involved in recording music: e.g. the design of the equipment being used. There are jobs that include the term "engineer" - e.g. Sound Engineer or Audio Engineer - and depending on the job, includes a good technical knowledge and maintenance of the sound gear (including setting up equipment, studios etc).

But all that is in the service of producing the ART, the MUSIC, the CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RECORDING.

You are concerned with the sound quality of recordings, right?

Well the sound quality is based on the specific ARTISTIC decisions of the artists/mixers/recordists/engineers. The engineers make decisions to get the sound the artist wants. And mixers/engineers/producers may certainly of course have a significant contribution in terms of those decisions and influencing the sound. But they are using the technology to achieve ARTISTIC CHOICES. It's THOSE ARTISTIC CHOICES that result in the sound quality you are concerned with!

I work constantly with mixers and engineers...and this is how it works. The balance, dynamics, emphasis, sound quality etc of all our tracks are a result of artistic decisions from all involved.

Perhaps part of the problem is in the definition of art. It is possible that what you describe as art, i describe as skill.
Yes, I know there is a great deal of collaberation between the artists and the engineers in making a recording in some instances. It may even be in the majority of cases these days. It wasn't necessarily so at the studios I've either worked at or attended as a guest.
Quite often the musicians/artists would leave the studio straight after the final recording, leaving the final mix to the engineer. Many of the musicians I know are not the slightest bit interested in the technicalities of the recording process. They're artists, not engineers and are mostly relieved that they don't have to go through the particular track they've been working on again.
Different experiences I guess.

 

[Shadrach]

So now mixing and mastering music is equivalent to designing amplifiers? Priceless indeed.

Did I write that?

 

[Shadrach]

It's not about the fetishization of high dynamic range (at least not for me). It's about keeping the natural dynamic range of the music that was heard by the artist and the mixing engineer when the mix was finished in the studio, there's no point to crush the mix further than that in the mastering stage just to make it louder because the end-user does have their own volume control for that. By keeping the natural transients of the finished mix it will sound less harsh and distorted when played at the same volume as the crushed mix, and you will probably (in most cases) even be able to play it much louder before it starts to sound bad.

I think maybe there is a misunderstanding going on here?
Just keeping the full dynamic range of the finished mix, and not limiting the mix in the mastering stage, doesn't mean the music necessarily will have larger dynamic "swings" between the sound objects in the mix itself, and go from super quiet to super loud as the classical music do. The only thing you need to do is to turn up the volume to the same level as the crushed master and it will sound much better.



I stumbled across an unofficial version of Daft Punk - Random Access Memories. When compared to the official release it's obviously a less harmed version with the dynamics intact as can clearly be seen in the Histogram graph, the track is "lifted" from the ground by about 6 dB. The thick Left and Right sausages at the top are also an indication of the completely unnecessary cut-off transients. The "All passed crest factor"-graph also indicates that a lot has been done to the official release during mastering.

View attachment 208059

I think Random Access Memories would be on many peoples list of well recorded albums. I'm not a big fan of Daft Punk but I've got the album ( I think it's the original issue) and it sounds great.

 

[Shadrach]

Burt and Andrew, too...


Why do you find it offensive, though? Recording stuff in the most "objectively correct" way is almost always the wrong choice. I say this from experience. I've recorded piano in about every environment you can think of (anything from an empty university classroom to a world-class scoring stage), and it was always a matter of what fit the music more than whatever it was that we were "supposed to do".

The BBC and others did that whole by-the-book thing, and that sound straight up didn't work for this newfangled stuff called rock and roll. It was at that point that you had guys like George Martin and his engineer Geoff Emerick almost literally tear up the rule book and say "How can we get this sound?". Putting mics close to a drum kit was quite literally against the rules in the early 60s. They did it anyway because they wanted a more direct drum sound.

Also - more people know how stuff works these days than in years past.

Because it sounds bad to my ears.
I'm not against the use of the great number of tools and effects available on the multi track consoles, although I find many of the two track and eight track recordings that have been thoughtfully produced more pleasing to listen to. I posted one above. To my ears it just sounds more right, than something with a very limited dynamic range.

Your last sentence probably has more bearing on the quality of some of the worst recordings than microphone placement and type, the acoustic properties of the room and the placement of the musicians.
Everyone is a recording engineer these days it seems because they can get the equipment.

 

[Shadrach]

I'm going to let the thread die. It's too much like hard work. I have my view which I know is shared by some others. Other people have their view.
There is not going to be any meeting of minds here. Far to much tackling the man rather than the ball as they say.
I may make a thread or add to an existing thread and post albums I think are well recorded and let others decide for themselves.
I'll leave the last word to Henry. Him and his hens are a more worthwhile use of my time.

 

[DanielT]

It is clear that everyone in a recording studio is involved in creating, or producing the music.
It is NOT the case that the musicians just go into a recording studio and press a button: record and the song would come (in which medium they chose). To what extent the others (not the musicians themselves) are involved in creating the music, well say that.

Further regarding creation. Who or what inspires a musician to create exactly the song the musician made? Of course, it can be anything, anyone, however. By the way, this applies to everyone, no matter what we do.

 

[clearnfc]

Different masterings of the same recording can be objectively compared with a program called MasVis. With the program, it's easy to see if the master has been limited just to make it louder for example.

But the recording itself can never be measured objectively and ranked by a program. The different tricks and things that the mixing engineer has done to create the stereo illusions in the mix, like delays, different layers, pannings and stuff like that can never be measured and ranked by a program.
The result of all that is of course subjective and can only be ranked by the individual listeners.

Thanks for your reply... You just pointed out something which i have been trying to say and most people here dont believe it. Some parameters of audio cannot be measured (at least not yet for now).

Just like the stereo illusions in the mix that cannot be measured, it is also impossible to measure how well audio equipment is reproducing these stereo illusions.

 

[Sokel]

Cool. I haven’t listened to Life of Temporary. I’ll check it out.

Listening to stuff like that always makes think how little some artists need to feel they expressed themselves and how they feel that all their audience need is music no matter the conditions.
It's kind of romantic.

 

[goat76]

Thanks for your reply... You just pointed out something which i have been trying to say and most people here dont believe it. Some parameters of audio cannot be measured (at least not yet for now).

Just like the stereo illusions in the mix that cannot be measured, it is also impossible to measure how well audio equipment is reproducing these stereo illusions.

Yes, creating a convincing stereo illusion can be a very complex thing when it comes to multi-microphone recordings. A single instrument can have numerous channels panned out in many directions in the stereo field, with different delays, layers, and added reverb just to make it sound natural.

All those things must be heard by the mixing engineer and can probably (at least for the time being) not be decided by a program. As an example, just a 1 ms difference in delay will cancel out completely different frequencies and change the way we hear the particular instrument in the mix. If some people thinks this can be done by a program, like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think he/she understands how complex mixing music can be.

Recording and mixing music is both a creative and an engineering process, problems must be solved and an illusion must be made. Both art and skills are needed.

 

[antcollinet]

An interesting discussion. I'm going to introduce an analogy. My other hobby is photography. One of the reasons (I believe) that I am drawn to photography, is that it allows me to express artistry (where I lack skill) through technical processes (where I don't). My background is a lifetime in engineering.

To make a great photograph, you need to understand (or feel) the artistry : the aesthetics of composition, and the interplay of light on the subject, how to evoke the emotion that a static image can convey - and, and... - all the stuff where I try to "fake it till I make it"

But there is a significant technical side to it also. A detailed technical understanding of the camera and how all the settings and controls interact to impact the appearance of the image. How the limitations of the equipment (including noise and dynamic range, just as in music) need to be considered. How the environment interacts and, and, and... Then in the post processing, how to operate the editing software technically, but also how to use that editing to realise the artistic vision AND the technical quality in the photograph.

So when I am engaging in photography am I operating as a technician or an artist? I'd argue it is both.

 

[clearnfc]

An interesting discussion. I'm going to introduce an analogy. My other hobby is photography. One of the reasons (I believe) that I am drawn to photography, is that it allows me to express artistry (where I lack skill) through technical processes (where I don't). My background is a lifetime in engineering.

To make a great photograph, you need to understand (or feel) the artistry : the aesthetics of composition, and the interplay of light on the subject, how to evoke the emotion that a static image can convey - and, and... - all the stuff where I try to "fake it till I make it"

But there is a significant technical side to it also. A detailed technical understanding of the camera and how all the settings and controls interact to impact the appearance of the image. How the limitations of the equipment (including noise and dynamic range, just as in music) need to be considered. How the environment interacts and, and, and... Then in the post processing, how to operate the editing software technically, but also how to use that editing to realise the artistic vision AND the technical quality in the photograph.

So when I am engaging in photography am I operating as a technician or an artist? I'd argue it is both.

Fully agreed. And for the artistry part, I believe its mostly down to "feel" or "sense". Although equipment and software do contribute partially, it mostly down to the photographer.

 

[clearnfc]

Yes, creating a convincing stereo illusion can be a very complex thing when it comes to multi-microphone recordings. A single instrument can have numerous channels panned out in many directions in the stereo field, with different delays, layers, and added reverb just to make it sound natural.

All those things must be heard by the mixing engineer and can probably (at least for the time being) not be decided by a program. As an example, just a 1 ms difference in delay will cancel out completely different frequencies and change the way we hear the particular instrument in the mix. If some people thinks this can be done by a program, like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think he/she understands how complex mixing music can be.

Recording and mixing music is both a creative and an engineering process, problems must be solved and an illusion must be made. Both art and skills are needed.

Cheers!! Thanks for your reply!! I really appreciate it.

 

[DanielT]

Yes, creating a convincing stereo illusion can be a very complex thing when it comes to multi-microphone recordings. A single instrument can have numerous channels panned out in many directions in the stereo field, with different delays, layers, and added reverb just to make it sound natural.

All those things must be heard by the mixing engineer and can probably (at least for the time being) not be decided by a program. As an example, just a 1 ms difference in delay will cancel out completely different frequencies and change the way we hear the particular instrument in the mix. If some people thinks this can be done by a program, like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think he/she understands how complex mixing music can be.

Recording and mixing music is both a creative and an engineering process, problems must be solved and an illusion must be made. Both art and skills are needed.

Interesting.

Hm, a visit to a recording studio and then take the opportunity to ask questions. If you are interested in HiFi and sound reproduction it should be an educational, and of course a fun and entertaining, experience.
(for me anyway)

Something like this:

Nashville Recording Studio Experience

Nashville is known as 'Music City', and the home of country music—which makes it the ideal place to visit a professional recording studio. No need to worry if your music knowledge is limited—there are over 20,000 backing tracks to choose from, so you can sing along to your favorite songs with a...

www.viator.com

Tip:

Historic Recording Studio Tour

Historic Recording Studio Tour road trip makes stops at Electric Lady Studios, Motown Historical Museum, Sun Studios and others. Plan your road trip with Roadtrippers.

maps.roadtrippers.com

 

[DSJR]

Yes, that's probably it. The people I know and worked with who went to college and got their degrees are probably called Brian and check new things for spec.
I'm probably called Brian as well.
I don't know where you're from, or what you do, but to call yourself an engineer in Europe one generally needs a degree in some science/engineering related subject.
The lack of qualifications might account for some of the recording I find most offensive. It seems that anyone with a console is a recording engineer these days

My understanding was/is that the record company and producer (the former 'leaning on' the latter) are who really dictates the final 'sound' of a production, the engineers recording and operating the mixer and other outboard devices basically doing as they're told so they can stay in a job... perhaps I have it wrong, but that's how I've understood it...

P.S. As with very accomplished musicians, I suspect a well versed recording engineer and mixer can use their tools and instruments as if they're extensions of themselves, being able to reach for a particular control or button without really thinking about it, the monitors used being known and subconsciuously adjusted to as long as they're not too much in error. The producer says how he'd like a passage to sound and the engineer then adjusts what's necessary to achieve that 'sound.' So yeah, I'd say the engineer and mixer plays an 'artistic' role using his tech skills in some of the more complex productions...

 

[DSJR]

Burt and Andrew, too...


Why do you find it offensive, though? Recording stuff in the most "objectively correct" way is almost always the wrong choice. I say this from experience. I've recorded piano in about every environment you can think of (anything from an empty university classroom to a world-class scoring stage), and it was always a matter of what fit the music more than whatever it was that we were "supposed to do".

The BBC and others did that whole by-the-book thing, and that sound straight up didn't work for this newfangled stuff called rock and roll. It was at that point that you had guys like George Martin and his engineer Geoff Emerick almost literally tear up the rule book and say "How can we get this sound?". Putting mics close to a drum kit was quite literally against the rules in the early 60s. They did it anyway because they wanted a more direct drum sound.

Also - more people know how stuff works these days than in years past.

Well worth a read this, as this gent was 'doing' popular music around if not before The Beatles, confirming your post above

Amazon.co.uk : tape rolling take one

www.amazon.co.uk

 

[Waxx]

My understanding was/is that the record company and producer (the former 'leaning on' the latter) are who really dictates the final 'sound' of a production, the engineers recording and operating the mixer and other outboard devices basically doing as they're told so they can stay in a job... perhaps I have it wrong, but that's how I've understood it...

P.S. As with very accomplished musicians, I suspect a well versed recording engineer and mixer can use their tools and instruments as if they're extensions of themselves, being able to reach for a particular control or button without really thinking about it, the monitors used being known and subconsciuously adjusted to as long as they're not too much in error. The producer says how he'd like a passage to sound and the engineer then adjusts what's necessary to achieve that 'sound.' So yeah, I'd say the engineer and mixer plays an 'artistic' role using his tech skills in some of the more complex productions...

That is the oldskool mainstream way of recording. But most recordings since decades are not done like that, and certainly not today.

Today the artist is mostly in control of the total production (except maybe commerical top30 pop like boysbands and so). And very often the musician is also the engineer these days. If he is not, he is mostly who hires a engineer/studio/producer and sells the end result to a label (if he is not the label himself). Very few artists, even in the mainstream, are still just doing what the producer tells them to do, and are mostly using a producer (if they use one) as a second opinion. But most do all themselves these days and bypass even record companies by going straight to distribution companies like N.e.w.s. Distribution (very famous in Europe, especially for electronic music) or online platforms like Bandcamp or Tunecore and the likes.

And in the underground music scenes, the artist is mostly everything: musician, composer, engineer, producer, label owner and band manager. They only thing that is still almost always an external thing is mastering. And the studio is mostly a homestudio, where acoustics are far from always optimal. And yes, those kind of productions can get worldwide recognition.

The Belgian artist Stromae his first album was produced by himself (Paul Van Haver) and his brother (Luc Van Haver) doing everything under the producer name Mosaert (wich is an anagram of Stromae btw). Mixing was done by 2 external engineers chosen and hired by them. And that album launched him to stardom from the Brussels underground scene in 2009 where he was known as rapper and rap producer before. His first single (Alors on danse) hit so hard in Belgium and France that Vertigo, a french label from Universal picked it up and released his album (that was already made and ready for release).

 

[DanielT]

What is needed to publish your own song today? I can record via my Tablet when I am amateurishly singing and playing guitar and then post it on Youtube. It will sound damn bad, but I can do it.

I can certainly also "cheat" via Autotune per se. Maybe cut in some sexy girls in the video. Can be a hit!

The problem is that I do not have the ability to create a song. A new created song that is.
(problem for that scenario, no problem otherwise).