Waltz Mastering
New member
I'm the same way about in home dentistry...I dabble... can never understand why the youngin's have a slight look of horror in their face when I come after them with a dremel though.
I'm the same way about in home dentistry...I dabble... can never understand why the youngin's have a slight look of horror in their face when I come after them with a dremel though.
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Booohahahaaa I guess I would be a non-professional.
Nice site btw.
Thanks.
Maybe Glen can give us some personal experiences using this example?
(just kidding G.)
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
I get the same response when I dress like a slut.
R
RAMI
Guest
This reminds me of a scene from Seinfeld :
ELAINE: Jerry, at what point do you consider sex is taking place?
JERRY: I believe it's when the nipple makes its' first appearance.
ELAINE: Jerry, at what point do you consider sex is taking place?
JERRY: I believe it's when the nipple makes its' first appearance.
Last edited:
Simman
Well-known member
You gotta love this!
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
There are a number of ways of looking at this, and the debate can bog down in a morass of cross-purposes if these ways are not identified.
For example:
Professional is sometimes taken to mean that you undetarke the work for remuneration (e.g. like a professional golfer).
On the other hand, professional is sometimes taken to mean an attitude to work.
Another interpreation is that a professional is someone who has formal qualifications in a particular field.
That means some qualified and income-earning professionals are unprofessional in their attitude.
On the other hand, unqualified amateurs can be very professional in their approach.
An 'audio engineer' too has assorted meanings. For example, there are those who use the term as a way of euphemising their status (i.e. like 'domestic engineer'), where the word 'engineer' confers status (supposedly) but does not imply qualifications. And of course there are audio engineers who have been through accredited courses.
If you ask the question "at what point do you call yourself an audio engineer?", there is a subtext, i.e. you are thinking about doing this, and for a reason, probably to advertise yourself as such and attract business.
I like Massive Mater's response earlier: "When you can consistently create the recording you intended to create." If you want to call yourself an engineer, you must be able to demonstrate that with the results expected of one.
For example:
Professional is sometimes taken to mean that you undetarke the work for remuneration (e.g. like a professional golfer).
On the other hand, professional is sometimes taken to mean an attitude to work.
Another interpreation is that a professional is someone who has formal qualifications in a particular field.
That means some qualified and income-earning professionals are unprofessional in their attitude.
On the other hand, unqualified amateurs can be very professional in their approach.
An 'audio engineer' too has assorted meanings. For example, there are those who use the term as a way of euphemising their status (i.e. like 'domestic engineer'), where the word 'engineer' confers status (supposedly) but does not imply qualifications. And of course there are audio engineers who have been through accredited courses.
If you ask the question "at what point do you call yourself an audio engineer?", there is a subtext, i.e. you are thinking about doing this, and for a reason, probably to advertise yourself as such and attract business.
I like Massive Mater's response earlier: "When you can consistently create the recording you intended to create." If you want to call yourself an engineer, you must be able to demonstrate that with the results expected of one.
X
XLR
______
Agreed .
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I agree with you about being able to demonstrate a certain amount of skill...but I'll point out that when it comes to audio engineering...most times your "results" are judged about 80% subjectively and 20% scientifically (if even that).
So...what "expectation" do most people really have...?
I don't like your mix = you are a bad audio engineer...???
Waltz Mastering
New member
I don't think it's always so much one's own expectations that has to be met, as it is the "clients" expectations.
Last edited:
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Well, yes. As I said, "If you want to call yourself an engineer, you must be able to demonstrate that with the results expected of one." In this statement, I thought the client was implied well enough. AFter all, who are you "demonstrating" to?
Miroslav says:
The phrase "results expected" is not qualified in my statement. Therefore it does not exclusively imply technical prowess. "Results expected" are, in fact, in the eye of the beholder, i.e. the client. They expect a result of certain quality and characteristics, and it is the engineer's job to deliver it. It is not the engineer's job to deliver a technical accomplished job that the client does not like.
The implication of this, though, is that for an engineer to meet the client's expectation, the engineer has to know what those expectations are, which means working closely with the client. Sometimes the client may have difficulty articulating exactly what it is they want. It is the engineers job to help them with this.
Professional engineers are therefore technicians who have the ability to interpret a client's wishes, and translate that actions within the sphere of their technology.
And in the broadest sense, I agree with "I don't like your mix = you are bad engineer."
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
(I understood that you were talking about client's expectations)
My point is...every engineer has a style and approach...they don't just twist knobs to some scientific points.
So...one client LOVES the mix you did...but then another client doesn't and therefore thinks you're not a good audio engineer.
Who is right?
That's my point...it's about 80% subjective for most clients....meanwhile, you as the audio engineer KNOW your skills and have all the necessary abilities of an audio engineer.
It's not like being a mechanical/civil/electronic/etc engineer...where it IS mostly about the science.
So the original question is rather hard to answer as clearly is it would be for those cases.
Audio engineering is art as much as it is science...though the end results are usually judged purely from an artistic perspective.
You can be a solid audio engineer from a scientific perspective and still come across as "not that good" to some clients based on the product.
It's just not all that cut and dried.
Not to mention...that the interpretation of your audio skills is DIRECTLY linked to the quality of the songs and talent..and you have NO control over that!!!
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Agreed.
Without a definitive generally agreed upon ruler of measurement any title is subjective.
What if someone has clients with low expectations which are met consistently? Does that make them professional?
This "definition" still seems pretty vague.
Keep your pimp hand strong!
Without a definitive generally agreed upon ruler of measurement any title is subjective.
What if someone has clients with low expectations which are met consistently? Does that make them professional?
This "definition" still seems pretty vague.
Keep your pimp hand strong!
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
They are both right. What is in question here is not engineering skills but a failure of communication. Why is one client dissatisfed with your work? As you note later, there is a lot of subjectivity in this, but I believe it is important to be able to manage that subjectivity. I had a client who insisted on a mix that I personally found musically unsettling. My diplomatc skills were insufficient to sway him from his preferred idea of a mix, so I went with what he wanted. He is totally happy with the result (but I am not, and asked him not to mention me in the credits).
I acknowledge the level of subjectivity in this area. However, I think it is very much like being a "mechanical/civil/electronic/etc engineer". For example, when I take my car to a mechanic, I expect him to fix the problem using his skills competently, sensibly and economically, even if I can't express what it is that's wrong with the car (my explanation is often, "It doesn't feel right" . . . a subjective assessment if ever there was one, and one that is usually all that I'm capable of making).
I agree that engineering is more than the science. The 'art' part is important, and includes the more ambiguous aspects of the field, like interpreting a client's needs. And I believe that's what I've been saying.
Agreed . . . you have no control over talent. But, so what? When the general public listens to music, how many of them are judging the quality of engineering by the quality of the talent? One of my jobs is to review CDs, and I therefore listen closely to the engineering aspects as well as to the material itself . . . and quite often I hear things that I don't like (for example, someone's recorded their guitar using a DI). But does the general public care? They like songs, they hate songs . . . but in most cases, the engineering is invisible to them.
bunt
Hand-Crank Mixer
Food for thought...
Our audio industry is based on a seemingly simple sequence of events. We capture a musical performance with microphones, whose outputs are blended into an electronic message stored on tape or disc, which is subsequently reproduced through two or more loudspeakers. This simple description disguises a process that is enormously complicated. We know from experience that, in some ways, the process is remarkably good. For decades we have enjoyed reproduced music of all kinds with fidelity sufficient to, at
times, bring tears to the eyes, and send chills down the spine. Still, critics of audio systems can sometimes point to timbral characteristics that are not natural, that change the sound of voices and instruments. They point to
noises and distortions that were not in the original sounds, rendering even the most eloquent tunes in a brittle and harsh fashion. They note that closing the eyes does not result in a perception that the listener is involved in the
performance, enveloped in the acoustical ambiance of a concert hall or jazz club. They point out that stereo, as we have known it, is an antisocial system – only a single listener can hear the reproduction as it was created.
For all of these criticisms there are solutions, some here and now, and some under development. All of the solutions are based on science. How can science, a cold and calculating endeavor if ever there were one, help with delivering the emotions of great music? Because, in the space between the performers and the audience, music exists as sound waves. Sound waves are physical entities, subject to physical laws, amenable to technical measurement and description and, in most important ways, predictable. The physical science of acoustics allows us to understand the behavior of sound waves as they travel from the musician to the listener, whether the performance is “live” or recorded.
Is this FUN or what?
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Well it sounds like we are all in some sort of agreement then!
Getting back to the original question...I don't think that a client's perspective is what you solely use to answer the question "Am I an audio engineer?"...there's more to it than that.
Granted...if you've been engineering for clients for many years and have a constantly poor response from the majority of them...you may need to reassess your skills. But when it gets into the purely subjective nature of individual likes/dislikes from client to client...that's not valid enough in itself.
Maybe you just need to find your niche clients that fit your artistic visions.
Heck…in the pro world…there are many engineers/producers that focus predominantly on one main style of music…over and over.
But I know in the home/project world…if your engineering for local bands…the luxury of picking your “niche” is not usually available.
Also...expecting a mechanic to fix an automotive problem is purely a skill-set requirement.
Having an audio engineer put together a perceived great product is more than just skillful manipulation of science, as there are often many ways to engineer the same recording….*correctly*.
There is only one way to fix a burned out starter on a car...
Getting back to the original question...I don't think that a client's perspective is what you solely use to answer the question "Am I an audio engineer?"...there's more to it than that.
Granted...if you've been engineering for clients for many years and have a constantly poor response from the majority of them...you may need to reassess your skills. But when it gets into the purely subjective nature of individual likes/dislikes from client to client...that's not valid enough in itself.
Maybe you just need to find your niche clients that fit your artistic visions.
Heck…in the pro world…there are many engineers/producers that focus predominantly on one main style of music…over and over.
But I know in the home/project world…if your engineering for local bands…the luxury of picking your “niche” is not usually available.
Also...expecting a mechanic to fix an automotive problem is purely a skill-set requirement.
Having an audio engineer put together a perceived great product is more than just skillful manipulation of science, as there are often many ways to engineer the same recording….*correctly*.
There is only one way to fix a burned out starter on a car...
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
True....but you know, I like that bit-o-distortion I'm hearing on the lead vocal...as it adds to the "vibe" of the song.
You may think it should be clean.
Then...I aso prefer a nice fat/low-tuned snare sound with some extra LF EQ rolled in and the snare panned to the right-of-center.
You may think it should more neutral sounding...with no added EQ, and panned up the middle.
Etc...etc...etc...etc...
All artistic, subjective decisions...not just scientific right/wrong solutions.
bunt
Hand-Crank Mixer
All artistic, subjective decisions...not just scientific right/wrong solutions.
Oh I totally agree.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
That assumes that the "I" making the judgment is qualified to make that judgment.
Just being able to make the client happy is way too weak of a standard, IMHO. As we see repeatedly in forums like this one (and hear constantly on ClearChannel), what the client "likes" does not necessarily connote quality engineering.
And what happens when one is one's own client? Then the only outside people who can "judge" are the unwashed listeners. Then it becomes a public popularity contest. In which case the quality of engineer is determined by unit sales, which is pure baloney. Some of the best engineers in the business (and out of it) never even make it to ClearChannel, for reasons that have nothing to do with their skill.
G.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
So true...oh so true.....
Being someone who is one's own "client", it's not easy to pass along my "vision" to folks who have lots of predetermined ideas about how stuff should sound, and they often use the "cookie-cutter" mentality and try to suggest that because my stuff doesn't sound like other stuff they are already familar with...therefore it's "ass".
But I plod on....it's a long journey...I know where I'm going, hopefully I will get there without having to change my vision.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Agreed. And then there's the added complication of how impossible it can be (sometimes) for the listener to separate the engineering from the music in a couple of ways.Being someone who is one's own "client", it's not easy to pass along my "vision" to folks who have lots of predetermined ideas about how stuff should sound, and they often use the "cookie-cutter" mentality and try to suggest that because my stuff doesn't sound like other stuff they are already familar with...therefore it's "ass".
Example A: How much of what they hear is the product of a clear production vision, versus how much is in spite of a lack of one.
Example B: How much of what they are hearing is the product of the tracking, the mixing or the mastering?
Even trained ears can have a difficult time with both, especially when a pretty good job has been done. It's much easier to find and point out mistakes, but it damn harder to isolate just why something sounds good i.e. who is responsible at what point in the process for something working right. Sometimes you can tell, but not always.
Question: is it the sign of a good mixing engineer to create a great mix from great tracks and great performances that practically mix themselves? Well, the short answer might be, yes it is, because only a good engineer knows when not to fuck with something. But how does that compare to an engineer who can take some so-so sounding tracks or mix and make them shine?
G.