The only real difference between a good engineer and a hack is...

[Lee Flier]

... their ears.

 

I mean, it sounds obvious, but a lot of times it gets overlooked in all the other minutia about monitors, room treatment, mics and other gear.

 

No matter what gear you have, even if you can't afford anything good, the best thing you can do to get better is ear training. Even if you have crap gear in a crappy room, if you spend a lot of time in there listening to some of your favorite CDs in your mix environment, then compare that to your own work, you should be able to immediately detect the differences. Learn to recognize when there are frequencies missing from the overall spectrum by doing quick A/B comparisons. They must be quick! Because auditory memory sucks. You can be doing something in a mix that is incremental and think everything sounds OK until you compare it to something else.

 

For the same reason, you should always frequently bypass effects when you apply them, and compare the effected signal with the original (bypassed) source, so you get a reality check.

 

Of course, the skill in engineering is learning to overcome the problems introduced by microphones and combined signals and instruments that occupy the same frequencies (not to mention crappy sounding rooms and less than stellar gear and musicians that may suck). But if you don't recognize what's wrong in the first place, you'll have no idea where to even begin learning and applying skills. And that's the number one problem I see with inexperienced engineers - not even so much the lack of skill but the fact that they can't identify (with their ears) what's wrong and imagine how it could be right.

 

Is this something that can be taught? Like I say, with some people it can, through ear training and repeated comparative listening. But there are some people who never do seem to "get it," and they will never be good engineers, just like some people are tone deaf and will never be good musicians or singers. This is a relatively small number of people, though. Most people can learn to recognize frequency ranges in recordings and where one or another is either deficient or over-emphasized. Most people can learn to recognize distortion and when it's OK (some distortion is pleasing to the ear) and when it isn't. Most people can learn to tell a good sonic balance from a poor one. And these are the first things anybody should learn before anything else - otherwise nothing else will do them any good. Whereas even if your gear sucks and your room sucks, if your ears don't suck you can still maximize whatever else you have and learn to compensate for it to a large degree.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

... their ears.

 

 

I can't imagine how anyone would consider otherwise.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

... their ears. I mean, it sounds obvious, but a lot of times it gets overlooked in all the other minutia about monitors, room treatment, mics and other gear. No matter what gear you have, even if you can't afford anything good, the best thing you can do to get better is ear training . Even if you have crap gear in a crappy room, if you spend a lot of time in there listening to some of your favorite CDs in your mix environment, then compare that to your own work, you should be able to immediately detect the differences. Learn to recognize when there are frequencies missing from the overall spectrum by doing quick A/B comparisons. They must be quick! Because auditory memory sucks. You can be doing something in a mix that is incremental and think everything sounds OK until you compare it to something else. For the same reason, you should always frequently bypass effects when you apply them, and compare the effected signal with the original (bypassed) source, so you get a reality check. Of course, the skill in engineering is learning to overcome the problems introduced by microphones and combined signals and instruments that occupy the same frequencies (not to mention crappy sounding rooms and less than stellar gear and musicians that may suck). But if you don't recognize what's wrong in the first place, you'll have no idea where to even begin learning and applying skills. And that's the number one problem I see with inexperienced engineers - not even so much the lack of skill but the fact that they can't identify (with their ears) what's wrong and imagine how it could be right. Is this something that can be taught? Like I say, with some people it can, through ear training and repeated comparative listening. But there are some people who never do seem to "get it," and they will never be good engineers, just like some people are tone deaf and will never be good musicians or singers. This is a relatively small number of people, though. Most people can learn to recognize frequency ranges in recordings and where one or another is either deficient or over-emphasized. Most people can learn to recognize distortion and when it's OK (some distortion is pleasing to the ear) and when it isn't. Most people can learn to tell a good sonic balance from a poor one. And these are the first things anybody should learn before anything else - otherwise nothing else will do them any good. Whereas even if your gear sucks and your room sucks, if your ears don't suck you can still maximize whatever else you have and learn to compensate for it to a large degree.

 

 

Can it be taught? Good question. For myself, I was able to train my ear to pick up what frequencies sounded like. I did this by purchasing a CD with Test Tones on it and listening.. sounds exciting doesn`t it?! This simple studying/listening really improved my mixes. As you said, its about knowing what to fix.

 

I think engineering is a tricky term because most engineers are required to know something about music. Some don`t have a clue about music but they are musical. To me, this is key. Are they musical? Gear and Music Theory is all overrated in my opinion. You can know all the theory there is to know and have the latest-greatest gear but w/o a musical sense... who cares.

 

Gear... overrated.

Theory... overrated.

Chops... overrated.

[Lee Flier]

 

I can't imagine how anyone would consider otherwise.

 

 

But it's amazing to me how many people don't. Or at the very least, neglect this aspect of the learning process. Some may get lucky and pick it up "accidentally" along the way but anyone would do much better to consciously work at it.

 

The other thing to consider is that even if your ears are good, as you get older your hearing changes. So you have to keep doing ear training your whole life. You can't rest on your laurels. The changes to your hearing that happen with age can be compensated for, just as room deficiencies, crappy monitors and all the rest can be compensated for. But you have to do it consciously and maintain the ear-brain relationship or your skills will atrophy.

[Lee Flier]

 

Can it be taught? Good question. For myself, I was able to train my ear to pick up what frequencies sounded like. I did this by purchasing a CD with Test Tones on it and listening.. sounds exciting doesn`t it?! This simple studying/listening really improved my mixes. As you said, its about knowing what to fix.

 

 

I find it more instructive to listen to frequencies in a real-world context - by comparing actual instruments or recordings or sweeping through frequency ranges with an EQ - than test tones. But whatever works.

 

 

I think engineering is a tricky term because most engineers are required to know something about music. Some don`t have a clue about music but they are musical. To me, this is key. Are they musical?

 

 

Yes, agreed.

 

 

Gear... overrated. Theory... overrated. Chops... overrated.

 

 

I wouldn't say they are overrated - it's just that all those things need to be subservient to good ears and a good musical sense, otherwise they won't matter and won't do you any good. If you have those two things, though, there's no doubt you will still benefit from having better gear or better chops or more knowledge of theory, because you will know what to do with them and how to apply them in a musical way.

 

And it's true also that someone with good ears and good musical sense can often make great music with very little formal training, and gear that isn't very good. It's just that once you get to a point where your ears and musical sense are really good, you'll probably want to invest in better gear and improve your musical skills.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

I find it more instructive to listen to frequencies in a real-world context - by comparing actual instruments or recordings or sweeping through frequency ranges with an EQ - than test tones. But whatever works. Yes, agreed. I wouldn't say they are overrated - it's just that all those things need to be subservient to good ears and a good musical sense, otherwise they won't matter and won't do you any good. If you have those two things, though, there's no doubt you will still benefit from having better gear or better chops or more knowledge of theory, because you will know what to do with them and how to apply them in a musical way. And it's true also that someone with good ears and good musical sense can often make great music with very little formal training, and gear that isn't very good. It's just that once you get to a point where your ears and musical sense are really good, you'll probably want to invest in better gear and improve your musical skills.

 

 

I would love to have more chops... theory and gear... I have. However, with that said, I would prefer to be musical. I think of Jeff Beck... the guy has such a musical soul... its hard NOT to love. Engineering is a little more tricky because an engineer makes sound in a secondary way... they can only work with what the talent has provided them with... its a bit frustrating for them I would imagine.

 

I think of Alan Parsons though... working with Pink Floyd... those guys are more musical than anything else... perfect combination. He had the musical sense to let those mixes breathe for that genre of music. He also knew how to orchestrate those records.. I`m talking specifically about Dark Side, The Wall and Wish You Were Here. Its more important to be musical from my perspective.

[blue2blue]

Ears... and brains -- or, more properly, knowledge. But Lee certainly gets at that, too.

 

One thing, I don't know if anyone can learn what it takes to be a good engineer, but I certainly believe that many people dismiss their own abilities -- or allow others to dismiss them -- when they shouldn't.

 

I was heartened to read in the Tape Op piece on Tommy "Snuff" Garrett that he took guitar lessons as a kid and the school pulled his parents aside after a couple years and said, in effect, Don't waste your money, little Tommy has "no musical talent whatsoever." Of course, Garret went on to become an extremely influential producer and industry figure, giving starts to folks like Phil Spector and Leon Russell.

 

The same thing was said to my parents when I was a kid by two different music educators -- and not without reason, I just couldn't seem to learn to play three notes in a row. It took me months just to learn how to tune a guitar without breaking strings. (Yet, years later I was often able to tune a guitar, without reference, to within a cent or two of concert.) Where there's a will, there's a way.

[the stranger]

No, it's the software. Without software, talent is useless.

[the stranger]

... their ears.

 

And experience.

[Lee Knight]

 

Ears... and brains -- or, more properly...

 

 

...and you go on to say "knowledge". I'd change that to "taste". Taste. Such a nebulous trait, but like porno, we know it when we see it. A great engineer has great taste. It doesn't take great taste to meticulously render a snare drum in an accurate manner.

 

It takes taste to be Geoff Emerick, or Jimmy Page, or Glenn Gould, or Picasso, or Bruce Swedien.

 

Ears, Brain, Taste.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

But it's amazing to me how many people don't.

 

 

When I taught the recording lab at Cal State Dominguez, I had my students spend the grand majority of their time listening, rather than touching gear. While learning the concepts of audio technology was important, my focus was much more teaching what to listen for... because you can't have any idea if the gear is doing what you want when you don't have any idea what it is that you want.

[Lee Flier]

...and you go on to say "knowledge". I'd change that to "taste". Taste. Such a nebulous trait, but like porno, we know it when we see it.

 

Exactly. Or to sum it up, knowing what sounds good and what doesn't. Of course some people will jump all over comments like this and point out that taste is subjective. Which is true enough, and often people make their mark by challenging the boundaries of taste. But in general, as you say, taste is like porn - you know it when you see (or hear) it, and it's the #1 thing you gotta have.

[UstadKhanAli]

Well, Lee Knight beat me to it. Much of this is also about taste as well.

 

Obviously, ears, taste enter into it. Recording engineering is, at its best, a beautiful balance of art and technology. Gear, acoustics, etc. are all important, but they and the rest of it, and the art and technology, should serve the artistic and emotional statement of the song.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Exactly. Or to sum it up, knowing what sounds good and what doesn't.

 

The key word here is context. What is tasteful for a contemporary country album will NOT be the same for a trashy punky garage rock band. As an engineer (and especially as a producer), it's crucial that you don't allow your personal taste to get in the way of what's right for the thing you are recording. The differences in what's good in drum sounds, in guitar tones, in vocal "perfection" versus "vibe" will be massive from genre to genre.

 

That's assuming you engineer/produce beyond one genre of music, of course.

[Anderton]

 

The other thing to consider is that even if your ears are good, as you get older your hearing changes.

 

 

True, but I recently gave a seminar in Alaska and did my usual rant about taking care of your ears. An actual ears, nose, and throat doctor was in the crowd, and he said that he thinks that hearing shouldn't have to deteriorate much over the years; that the deterioration is due more to the cumulative effect of being hit with loud sounds over the years.

 

There aren't any studies (e.g., someone spending their life in an anechoic chamber, and having their ears tested every year) but it does explain why I have unusually good hearing, given my age. I've always been very paranoid about ear health, and have used protection in my ears almost from the first day I started doing concerts at age 12.

[Lee Flier]

 

True, but I recently gave a seminar in Alaska and did my usual rant about taking care of your ears. An actual ears, nose, and throat doctor was in the crowd, and he said that he thinks that hearing shouldn't have to deteriorate much over the years; that the deterioration is due more to the cumulative effect of being hit with loud sounds over the years.

 

 

My hearing is still really good, but it hasn't deteriorated so much as it has changed. There are things I simply hear differently now than 25 years ago, which I'm sure is very common, and I'm not sure that's even a function of the ear itself so much as the relationship of the ear and the brain. Your brain does change over time as you're exposed to different types of music and sounds, and it changes the way you hear things. Tinnitus is an example of a brain adaptation that changes what you hear, even though your ears may not be physically damaged.

 

This isn't something you necessarily have to be tested for or try to "correct," unless it's an obvious problem like tinnitus. But it does mean that comparative ear training is still helpful periodically, to maintain your perspective.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

my best recordist are all deaf but not blind. they can see it in advance when the recoring gets execellent.

 

the mixmasters are a whole other story.

[Lee Flier]

The key word here is context. What is tasteful for a contemporary country album will NOT be the same for a trashy punky garage rock band. As an engineer (and especially as a producer), it's crucial that you don't allow your personal taste to get in the way of what's right for the thing you are recording. The differences in what's good in drum sounds, in guitar tones, in vocal "perfection" versus "vibe" will be massive from genre to genre.

 

Yeah, definitely, and of course a lot of mistakes are made in that area too. But that's not so much what I'm referring to. You or I may consider it completely tasteless to Autotune a punk band, but there are people who would probably buy it. I'm just talking about fundamentals like balancing the frequency spectrum or being able to detect unwanted distortion, or losing instruments in the mix. If you don't realize these things are happening at the time, you can't correct them.

 

You mentioned emphasizing listening in your recording class - I assisted with a recording workshop a few times where the teacher did something similar. When the students got done with their mixes, one of the exercises he did was to take each of their mixes, listen to 30 seconds of it, then shut it off and dial up a random song on the radio. It's instantly apparent (or should be) whether frequencies are missing or preamps were overloaded or there are phase problems or there's way too much reverb, and that type of thing, no matter what the genre. But a lot of people never learn to notice these things because they never bother to make comparisons at the time.

[WRGKMC]

I would consider hacks to be those who call themselves engineers yet have no diploma to prove it. Calling yourslf an engineer without earning the diploma, is disrespectful to those who have put the time in to earn that degree.

 

Does having a diploma make you a great engineer or equate producing great recordings? Obviously not, nor does making great mixes require a diploma.

 

Think the first most obvious answer beyond that is good engineer is going to earn big money by attracting great clients who pay. True engineers, often do a whole lot more in a company then just mix or master if he's worth his pay. He may do more as a glorified salesman, oversees others who do the hands on, or may partake when it comes to high profile customers. But its unlikely he will take a lesser paying job like only using his ears to earn the company money unless he's the actual owner operator.

 

The quality of his product would obviously be the big second big item but as we all know, Quality doesnt always equate to dollars made. (even if you want it to).

 

If I were getting something mixed/masterd as a client, i'd just want it to sound great and make me money. I could care less How it got that way or who was involved. If I had a problem I'd want to be able to take it up with the guy in charge who could fix it or describe in exact detail why it cant be. I wouldnt care less if the guy had dumbo ears, or if the guy was completely deaf and did the whole thing with frequency analizers. If its great, its great.

 

Of course experience, ears, equipment, intelegence are all plusses when shoping for an actual engineer so it would be unlikely I'd choose someone without good references in these areas.

 

I consider a hack as someone who cannot achieve any of the above. The reason could be many issues including ego, lack of knowlege, experience, equipment, no clients, no references or lack of a quality product.

[UstadKhanAli]

And sometimes....just sometimes...the only real difference between a good engineer and a hack are people skills!

[Lee Flier]

 

Think the first most obvious answer beyond whats been mentioned is good engineer is going to earn big money by attracting great clients who pay. The quality of his product would obviously be the big second big item but as we all know, Quality doesnt always equate to dollars made. (even if you want it to).

 

 

A "good" engineer to me is completely a qualitative statement. It has nothing to do with dollars made, so your post is pretty irrelevant. And actually contradictory because first you say "a good engineer is going to earn big money" and then you say that quality doesn't always equate to dollars made.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Yes, I definitely don't equate "good" with "income" in ANY job relating to music.

 

However, being good doesn't mean you can't be rich. But the reverse is proven to be false.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

And sometimes....just sometimes...the only real difference between a good engineer and a hack are people skills!

 

"The only real difference between a good engineer and a hack is... "

 

interesting topic, never thought about that, but since it came up: I would think the main differences between a sausage and the best is in the music they record and mix

 

 

 

 

.

[UstadKhanAli]

Well, I agree with all of the above, of course. But he writes:

 

"Think the first most obvious answer beyond whats been mentioned is good engineer is going to earn big money by attracting great clients who pay. "

 

And I realize that some of the post may contradict that afterwards, but I wanted to point out that he seems to acknowledge that the stuff we've been discussing is the most important.

[Lee Flier]

And sometimes....just sometimes...the only real difference between a good engineer and a hack are people skills!

 

True, somebody who has good ears and people skills is going to be more successful than somebody with good ears and no people skills, in all likelihood!

 

Whether they're really better in terms of putting out a better product, though, I don't know. Maybe the best engineer of all is the one who's a big enough asshole to say "Go take some singing lessons before you bother setting foot in my studio, punk!"