A question for the pros - Getting into sound engineering.

On the other hand, those epic fails were lessons I've never forgotten.

And that was my point to the OP.
When you find out for yourself, using your own line of thinking, it tends to burn into your brain whether it's a positive or negative result. You really learn.
 
Good Lord, I've actually read this thread from start to finish. :facepalm:

It quickly became obvious that the OP (Phil) appears to be intent on doing a course and nothing anyone says is going to change that, he has continually responded with "yes, but" kind of answers and I doubt that anything already said, or said in future posts is going to really get through to him, anyways, for what it's worth...........:

...........contact some local "pro audio" hire companies and try to get some experience doing live sound with them. This may teach you some of the realities of working in audio, however, it won't teach you what you need to know for recording. Working live sound doesn't give you the time to crawl around in front of a drum kit or guitar amp using your ears or to reposition mics to find a sweet spot, it won't teach you the benefits of specific mic choice, etc., etc...........and it's highly unlikely that you will learn much of this from a course, you may learn what, for example, a compressor does and what each knob does BUT it won't teach you how and or when to apply it.

As has been said previously, you would be far better directing $$ towards whatever is necessary to teach yourself and delving into the vast wealth of good advice that is available here, particularly in the early years of posts.

I've probably wasted my time as you can lead a horse to drink but you can't make it water :D

:cool:
 
It's a bit like taking a course on riding a bicycle. They can teach you about gyroscopic precision, show you charts and graphs on gear ratios, tell you to wear a helmet, but none of that matters as much as getting on the bike and learning to ride the effing thing.
 
It quickly became obvious that the OP (Phil) appears to be intent on doing a course and nothing anyone says is going to change that, he has continually responded with "yes, but" kind of answers and I doubt that anything already said, or said in future posts is going to really get through to him, anyways, for what it's worth...........:

This isn't true. I've gone from considering a 3 year course to a 3 week one. I'd say I've listened to the advice given to me. If you've read the thread this should be fairly evident imo.

contact some local "pro audio" hire companies and try to get some experience doing live sound with them. This may teach you some of the realities of working in audio, however, it won't teach you what you need to know for recording. Working live sound doesn't give you the time to crawl around in front of a drum kit or guitar amp using your ears or to reposition mics to find a sweet spot, it won't teach you the benefits of specific mic choice, etc., etc...........and it's highly unlikely that you will learn much of this from a course, you may learn what, for example, a compressor does and what each knob does BUT it won't teach you how and or when to apply it.

This is exactly what the course allows. Plus I get a weeks unlimited time to spend in the studio, with the desk, with a sound engineer on site to ask all the questions I need.

Week 1. Miking instruments for different sounds and applications. Using the desk, compressors, EQ, gain staging,m signal flow and running a studio efficiently.

Week 2 - Mixing, using the compressor and EQ to get different sounds and effects. When and how to use them, how much to use, using effects, some basic mastering. This is where we mix the song we recorded previously.

Week 3 - Unlimited studio time to record a song or my band, the ability to call on the sound engineer whenever I need him, and then unlimited time to use their mixing equipment and mastering suite. I can spend this time miking instruments and recording stuff over and over, 9am to 8pm or just experimenting. There's 4 people max per course and two studios are allocated us for that time.

some people like being in a classroom and being lectured to, rather than just experimenting on their own...
...plus you'll maybe make some new friends, etc...so enjoy it if that's what you really need to do.

Yep. There are multiple, equally valid learning styles, and I like a structured approach. I don't like having gaps in my knowledge. I excel when I have guidance, and find that the gaps can sometimes be quite big.

As has been said previously, you would be far better directing $$ towards whatever is necessary to teach yourself and delving into the vast wealth of good advice that is available here, particularly in the early years of posts.

I mean...if you have a decent job, you can cover the gear requirements, so I would focus more on setting up a more involved studio than taking 3 weeks of courses, because that Recording 101 shit, is all over the internet...for free.

I live in a small flat. I have a decent studio but I don't have the means to mike amps all day, I would become homeless pretty quickly! :D My studio is a means to an end, and it doesn't allow me the ability to learn everything I need to in order to become more self sufficient and to maybe branch out confidently.

No studio is going to let me just use all their equipment, I need to have a knowledge of what everything (more or less) does. This will give me the a basic ability to go into a studio and record a band, without it I'll look like a fool walking in and not knowing how to use the board, for example.

It really does seem that it's a crash course and more in the fundamentals of the whole process, and I fail to see how I can't learn a lot!
 
I live in a small flat. I have a decent studio but I don't have the means to mike amps all day, I would become homeless pretty quickly! :D

Well then...here's something more to consider.
If you hook-up with a couple of people in that course you end up taking...see if you can buddy-up on a studio venture.
IOW...maybe someone else has the space, and you then combine forces and go from there.
There are lots of studios that have some sort of partnership deal with a couple-three engineers, and all of them pooling their resources toward a common goal.

If you can really get something going with a studio....you'll most likely appreciate having someone else there to pull the weight with you, 'cuz it can become a grind for one person...unless you absolutely prefer working all solo.
 
I fear your expectations from 'courses' are never going to be realised. I spent quite a while taking time out from the real world learning how to be a teacher, with a qualification and the knowledge to maximise learning in young people and adults. I also ended up leading a big department in a busy college - music and performing arts and I have to say this course worries me greatly. It shows the classic solution to what studios do to make money when business is slack. From a business perspective a few things need considering.

People in studios pay for studio time. They object to paying for studio time and discovering the engineer using it as a training session. If they don't object, then their quality threshold and experience is low, because they've not noticed. If the 'training', and I deliberately put it in inverted commas because it will be unquantified, experiential and following no standard that makes it valid as a qualification.

If you need to be shown by other people, and cannot learn in your own studio my experiential learning, you may have an educational disadvantage. Normally, people have one method of learning that is most effective for them. In one to one situations an experienced, professional, qualified teacher will switch delivery to your preferred mode. I really cannot imagine the engineer in a typical studio even understanding this, and if they use approach 2 and you need 5, then the learning experience is poor, the transfer of knowledge is poor and the mismatch usually means people give up. It really is this basic. There is a problem, nowadays it's common to have people with specific educational needs - the autistic scale is so much better understood. People with mild autism find learning a requirement. They are sponges and have a desire, perhaps even a genuine need to know and grow. People sit on the autistic scale and again, the teacher needs to know and understand this or frustration grows exponentially when information is presented badly, or in an unstructured way. I wonder if Phil could be in this category, as his posts show need and frustration in the answers provided - which I have to say are pretty on the mark.

My view is that education by a studio in downtime is a terrible source of knowledge. They will tell you to do X, but forget that the reason they said X, is because they noticed Y and Z and this prevented them saying W. They do things because they do - not because it's the best or most appropriate. They may well always grab an SM57 from the mic box. Ask them why and the answer is that they always do it. They don't ever try anything else. If you ask them a question on where the 57 has it's presence peak they probably won't be able to tell you - why would they need a number to use one?

Do you want facts, or practice?

After all the years of teaching people, I have generated a few kind of rules. Some people are unteachable. Rare, but they exist. Most learn a bit, despite the teacher. However, the real issue is that some people have a need that the teacher cannot provide. sOme people are totally draining - like young children when you tell them something and they say 'Why?" you explain and again they ask why. A studio guy is likely to say "we do it this way", and if you ask why you are told that it's just how it's done.

A short course at a studio is in my humble view great for being nosey, and watching how they do things, but totally rubbish as any form of foundation for learning because they're not teachers, it's not designed for education, and you have no way of assessing the match between teacher and learner. They have a job to do, you are a paying inconvenience. Being an observer during busy sessions can be invaluable to people who can learn that way, but from my own experience with live theatre, having somebody trying to learn while I'm doing a real job means they get less of my time than they need. Grab that mic, cable it back to that patch panel over there - stuff it into 16 or 17 whichever is empty and then tell the sound guy where you plugged it - then I jog off to sort something else to discover they simply had no idea of what I meant - they plugged the mic up where it was, in the wings, and forgot to explain why they were telling the sound guy it was in 18 because 16 and 17 were both in use. The sound guy is waiting for the mic to come up, but never thinks to try 18, and as the mic isn't even being spoken into (not asked for) it goes pear shaped and he has to run to stage, and do it himself.

For anyone considering a paid for short course as some questions.

Can they give you an example of a scheme of work that shows what you will be doing, what you will learn and the sequence of learning?
How much one to one time will I have?
Will I be working on my own, or with other students?
What course materials are provided?

Simple questions that any programme designed to genuinely educate will be able to provide.

If they cannot answer them, then walk away - you are being used to generate funds with the excuse of training.

A good other thing to watch for is any course that have pre-printed certificates with names already on them. These mean nobody ever fails to complete the course.

There are a few excellent studio long and short courses - SAE pop to mind as decent ones, but most are really totally rubbish. I learn best by touching, feeling and experimenting then doing my own research. I learn the least from talk and chalk. This means I can get myself into situations, function and learn. I realise I'm lucky in this. It means I get paid jobs based on bluster and being able to verbally improvise. I then use my skills in a transferable way, and do a reasonable job, but I learn so much. I'm a master of nothing, but I do a huge range of things competently. I exaggerated to get my first studio TV cameraman job in 1983. I'd never used a broadcast camera, but my research was enough to be able to do it without giving the game away, and while I suspect I was a bit slow, I didn't appear a total fraud or an idiot, and got another booking and another - getting better really quickly. I could assess what things would change as I did new roles and coped. I even allow people do do this to me now I use other people, I know they exaggerated, but I also can judge if they are going too be a liability, and if they show the right stuff, I help them along. Equally I get rid of those people who need excessive guidance and ask too many questions - or simply don't have initiative.

I could easily run courses but I am supposed to be putting on shows, not training people for money.
 
WoW! Did not understand all that Rob but got the gist.

It seems to show me that the apprenitice system that evolved here to train artisans was in fact a rather good one?

I had 5 years at a family R&TV firm training as a service tech. I got the experience of five or six guys from a very old retainer to younger men and thus several differnt slants on the jobs including going out on the "vans" and getting contact with Joe Public.

I also had a day at the local technical college where I learned the "whys" of electronics that the shop guys did not have time to sit down and explain or in some cases simply did not know. But...I say again...FIVE years.

Best of Both I reckon?

Dave.
 
The trouble here is that most studio people are self-taught, and became good from experience. They're poorly equipped to teach anyone who doesn't learn the same way. Some people need to read (Hermione Granger in Harry Potter), while others just try and try again till it works. Others like to have things explained verbally, others need to physically try thing - the touchy-feely people, of which I am one. Some people can not stand being 'taught' as in lecture education. Others need to try, then have the failure explained, then go off alone and try again. The big issue with sound training is that you also need the 'ear'. One topic I never had much luck with students understanding was compression. I can hear the compressor being turned up. I'd estimate over 90% can't. blind testing proved it. "How about now?" = yes much better when you hadn't actually done anything. The infamous DFA button - so many people said they could hear it working. If you have a restriction - maybe you cannot perceive pitch accuracy, then it influences what you do. If you cannot tune a guitar without a tuner, how can you adjust a pitch shift plugin? if you have hearing loss, can you set eq for people who don't have it?

The other thing is the competence of the engineer to teach. Not an educational competence, a people competence.
 
Err? I can tune a guitar Rob (frets or harmonics) but cannot get it reliably to concert pitch without a reference.

Mind you, when I do and check it I am rarely more than a tone out, usually better.

Very few people have perfect pitch do you? Then, A 440 does not hold for EVERY country in the world!

As for "different strokes"? I had, as I say best of both. Showed by old timers that learned by T&E AND leaned from my cockups (got bollocked mind!) . Also got the sitting down, talked at lectures at tech. Afternoons were spent on practical stuff. In my last year our project was an induction heater for tempering steel. Brute force traff powered 2kV DC at 2 amps. Would not be allowed now!

Dave.
 
No absolutely not. Relative tuning fine, but last week I recorded a track and when we started to mix, it was awfully out of tune. all VSTIs, so what was going on. I used a harpsichord sound, a real sample of a very old nice harpsichord and what I didn't realise was it was NOT A=440, but 430 something.

My colleague I work with all the time DOES have perfect pitch and it's a curse in some ways. Hear a note and he yells F sharp. however, sometimes old recordings have been varispeeded, and he says it's like fingernails on a blackboard. Not F, not F Sharp, but half way between and he can't stand it at all.
 
Back
Top