This post was first published in Feb 2014 at projectstudiohandbook.com/PSHforum
Fear is a big driving force in our lives. And sound engineers feel it too. They are terrified of being ridiculed for their poor equipment choices.
"What is the best tool for this job?" they ask on forums. And there are no shortage of answers. Mostly from other engineers desperate to have their own equipment choices validated.
So what objective measures can we use to determine a given piece of equipments value? It turns out there are two.
Firstly, what are the cold technical specs in support of the designers vision? If the device is intended to perform its job without changing the signal passing through it, such as a mic pre, we can simply compare the input and output signals. If there is unwanted added noise and harmonic distortion we can measure it and compare it against another device. Trouble is, modern electronics are so good that these differences are largely undetectable in blind tests, or at the worst, irrelevant to a great recording. I mean, do you seriously think that any of the equipment you own is technically inferior to the equipment used to record the Beatles LPs?
The second is easy. How much money did a recording earn that was made with the equipment. That's it. Cold cash. You see, most engineers want to recreate the sounds of successful recordings because they believe that their financial success validates the equipment. Or they lack imagination or are terrified of trying to create a new sound that may be laughed at. Its a dangerous game this creativity thing.
So what conclusions can we draw? Well, unless you want to capture the sound of an acoustic instrument as transparently as possible, the technical measurable quality of a give piece of equipment is irrelevant to its creative potential. You don't need an U47 or 1176 to make a great recording. You only need a U47 or 1176 if you want the sound of a U47 or 1176, and why would you want that? Because you've heard it on a successful recording. And while we're on the subject, since when did 'creamy', 'warm' and 'punchy' become universally desirable attributes? What if we want 'cold', 'harsh' and 'saggy'?
But hey, don't get us wrong, we like U47s and 1176s too. But try to remember that your choices, whatever they are, are valid, so don't listen to the cork sniffers, don't ask for subjective advice on forums, and treat subjective reviews (they want to keep their advertisers happy) with suspicion.
I few years back we visited a seminar on the Fender Stratocaster at a major guitar show. The panelists unanimously agreed that late 50s Strats were the best and late 60's early 70's CBS large headstock Strats the worst. Steer clear at all costs they warned. Except Jimi Hendrix played a Late 60's early 70's CBS large headstock Strat.
So, this is why we make videos on theory and technical matters only, and steer clear of subjective evaluations and how-to guides on how to get a "great sound". Understand the theory so you can get the job done, but have the courage of your convictions, create your own sounds, and remember that trying to re-create what's gone before is a mugs game (mostly!).
Glad we got that off our chest!
Fear is a big driving force in our lives. And sound engineers feel it too. They are terrified of being ridiculed for their poor equipment choices.
"What is the best tool for this job?" they ask on forums. And there are no shortage of answers. Mostly from other engineers desperate to have their own equipment choices validated.
So what objective measures can we use to determine a given piece of equipments value? It turns out there are two.
Firstly, what are the cold technical specs in support of the designers vision? If the device is intended to perform its job without changing the signal passing through it, such as a mic pre, we can simply compare the input and output signals. If there is unwanted added noise and harmonic distortion we can measure it and compare it against another device. Trouble is, modern electronics are so good that these differences are largely undetectable in blind tests, or at the worst, irrelevant to a great recording. I mean, do you seriously think that any of the equipment you own is technically inferior to the equipment used to record the Beatles LPs?
The second is easy. How much money did a recording earn that was made with the equipment. That's it. Cold cash. You see, most engineers want to recreate the sounds of successful recordings because they believe that their financial success validates the equipment. Or they lack imagination or are terrified of trying to create a new sound that may be laughed at. Its a dangerous game this creativity thing.
So what conclusions can we draw? Well, unless you want to capture the sound of an acoustic instrument as transparently as possible, the technical measurable quality of a give piece of equipment is irrelevant to its creative potential. You don't need an U47 or 1176 to make a great recording. You only need a U47 or 1176 if you want the sound of a U47 or 1176, and why would you want that? Because you've heard it on a successful recording. And while we're on the subject, since when did 'creamy', 'warm' and 'punchy' become universally desirable attributes? What if we want 'cold', 'harsh' and 'saggy'?
But hey, don't get us wrong, we like U47s and 1176s too. But try to remember that your choices, whatever they are, are valid, so don't listen to the cork sniffers, don't ask for subjective advice on forums, and treat subjective reviews (they want to keep their advertisers happy) with suspicion.
I few years back we visited a seminar on the Fender Stratocaster at a major guitar show. The panelists unanimously agreed that late 50s Strats were the best and late 60's early 70's CBS large headstock Strats the worst. Steer clear at all costs they warned. Except Jimi Hendrix played a Late 60's early 70's CBS large headstock Strat.
So, this is why we make videos on theory and technical matters only, and steer clear of subjective evaluations and how-to guides on how to get a "great sound". Understand the theory so you can get the job done, but have the courage of your convictions, create your own sounds, and remember that trying to re-create what's gone before is a mugs game (mostly!).
Glad we got that off our chest!
No comments:
Post a Comment