Poll, are you a "tech-e"

[jmorris]

Im wondering how many of you folks consider yourselves to be technically on your game. I mean are you a” tech-e”? I sure as hell am not, I cant even spell it. I posted a poll. I’d like to know in your comments here if it does, or does not hold you back from getting great recordings. I am the least technical person I know. I honestly don’t even know what dither is, or bit rate/depth. Digital is 0’s and 1’s but that’s as far as I go. I feel and can get very good results but am I limited by my lack of knowlage???? I'm very interested in what peoples levels are,how complete their understanding of the recording art is. Mine is low...VERYlow I'll tell you that right now!

 

[TragikRemix]

I have to say I know alot of the technicalities- however I am not very successful in utilizing them.

basically, i Know how and why, but knowing tech stuff doesn't help your ears produce a better mix.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm not sure I understand the motivation for/interest in this question.

I imagine that in "home recording" (not counting the "pros"0 most will break down into one of two categories; musicians who record and tech hobbyists who like music. Not to stereotype - there will be plenty of exceptions - but for the most part the former group will by nature be less technical and the later more technical.

But what does that mean as far as engineering skills? Almost nothing, IMHO. There are going to be some non-techies who suck and others who excel at audio. There are going to be some techies who who suck and others who excel at audio.

Hell, there are "musicians" who suck and others who excel at being musicians and "pro engineers" who suck and other who excel at being audio engineers.

What separates those who can do it from those who can't is 1) a solid work ethic and 2) an ear that is both musical and analytical. With those two, everything else falls into place.

G.

 

[jmorris]

Glen, my main motivation, so to speak, is to find out from others how much their knowlage either helps them achieve a great product or inhibits them from same

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen, my main motivation, so to speak, is to find out from others how much their knowlage either helps them achieve a great product or inhibits them from same

I imagine it will help those who tend to understand things from a technical perspective and it will hinder those who don't.

I know I am coming across sounding like Debbie Downer here, and I really don't want to, but I'm not sure how else to parse it; this is a major problem with single-question polls like this one - we have no way of knowing what the answers are actually telling us. Personally, as it is stated, I think this poll is going to tell us more about the average makeup of this board's population than it will about the intrinsic value (or lack of value) of technical knowledge.

For example, imagine putting a general poll out on the net asking how important the number of cylinders their car engine has is. Is that going to tell us more about the importance of the number of cylinders or about the percentage of male/female respondents to the question?

Another example closer to home is when one asks about the importance of expensive gear, there's no way of knowing just how much the answers are being skewed by the respondents' ability to be able to afford the expensive gear or not.

Ugh, I wish they would just disable the polling option on these boards, to be honest, the results are useless.

G.

 

[Dogbreath]

I can't be the only one to have voted "No" !

er..uh...


I mean...

uh...



What was the question?

 

[Yonce N Mild]

Ugh, I wish they would just disable the polling option on these boards, to be honest, the results are useless.

G.

The results may not be scientifically accurate but the results along with the discussion can be enlightening and interesting.

 

[TragikRemix]

I interpreted the poll as a basically a question of:

"does understanding the technical aspects of recording make you a better engineer/producer".

its ONLY going to help you to understand what you are doing. having less knowledge doesnt necessarily mean you won't be good at what you're working on. Hell, i'm sure some guy that recorded on R2R 60 years ago wouldn't have too many issues making a good mix with a DAW if he only knew the basic operations.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The results may not be scientifically accurate but the results along with the discussion can be enlightening and interesting.

I agree on the discussion part, for sure. It never hurts to discuss such questions.

But the actual poll itself is meaningless on far more than just a scientific accuracy scale. They - at best - draw no conclusions, and more often draw the reader to incorrect conclusions.

G.

 

[jmorris]

I got thinking about this because I myself know so little and I read an interview in Mix I believe with Geoff Emerick where he stated he was NOT really that much a tech-e.He talked about how EMI had rules about not reusing tape...something about flux he say,then goes on to say he did not know that much about the technical side.But look at what he produced!

 

[d.bop]

I'm a techie...at least I think so..

[brag]
My first computer was an IBM with a 386 processor and MS-DOS so I pretty much HAD to learn how computers worked.. That was fun haha. I've been on Windows since v3.1 (also dabbled in Linux and MacOS along the way..) AOL v2.5... oh yeah haha.

I was the silent kid with shaggy hair who sat in the back row in math class making calculator games for the rest of the kids to play haha. Taught myself C++ and VB6.0 in high school but ended up taking classes for the "certification." Never did anything with it though.

Now I just build and fix computers for family members and friends. Along with recording for pretty much nothing. I could probably be working for some major company but I choose not to. Techie knowledge is my hobby.
[/brag]

In the words of MC Chris...
"I'm a G33K!, small-g-double-e-k!"

ThEnd.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I got thinking about this because I myself know so little and I read an interview in Mix I believe with Geoff Emerick where he stated he was NOT really that much a tech-e.He talked about how EMI had rules about not reusing tape...something about flux he say,then goes on to say he did not know that much about the technical side.But look at what he produced!

And at the same time, look who he had next to him much of the later part of his time at Abbey Road (not necessarily literally next to him). Alan Parsons could probably write a PhD thesis on magnetic flux. Two guys with entirely different approaches to, and attitudes about, the depth of technical knowledge who were working on much the same kind of stuff for the same employers and clients, just slightly time-shifted from each other.

Is one better than the other? I don't think that's possible to call with any meaning. Some may have personal preferences that are better debated over alcohol at a bar than they are here, but no one can properly argue that they haven't each been able to achieve tremendous success from opposite sides of the technie fence.

One uses the side of the brain that works best for them. Ever hear of the guy that does everything in the studio by color? When he hears sounds he literally "sees" colors; he successfully navigates his way around the studio and around his mixes by associating different gear and techniques with different color changes or attributes. Knows next to nothing about the science behind audio engineering, but has a system that works for him - and one that does not violate the basics of having the ear and learning the technique.

G.

 

[jmorris]

I interpreted the poll as a basically a question of:

"does understanding the technical aspects of recording make you a better engineer/producer".

its ONLY going to help you to understand what you are doing. having less knowledge doesnt necessarily mean you won't be good at what you're working on. Hell, i'm sure some guy that recorded on R2R 60 years ago wouldn't have too many issues making a good mix with a DAW if he only knew the basic operations.

You have it exactly right!,wish I could have worded it that way..

 

[jmorris]

And at the same time, look who he had next to him much of the later part of his time at Abbey Road (not necessarily literally next to him). Alan Parsons could probably write a PhD thesis on magnetic flux. Two guys with entirely different approaches to, and attitudes about, the depth of technical knowledge who were working on much the same kind of stuff for the same employers and clients, just slightly time-shifted from each other.

Is one better than the other? I don't think that's possible to call with any meaning. Some may have personal preferences that are better debated over alcohol at a bar than they are here, but no one can properly argue that they haven't each been able to achieve tremendous success from opposite sides of the technie fence.

One uses the side of the brain that works best for them. Ever hear of the guy that does everything in the studio by color? When he hears sounds he literally "sees" colors; he successfully navigates his way around the studio and around his mixes by associating different gear and techniques with different color changes or attributes. Knows next to nothing about the science behind audio engineering, but has a system that works for him - and one that does not violate the basics of having the ear and learning the technique.

G.

Yeah,I've heard of that guy.It was Geoff Emerick!How funny is that. I read that in an iterview with him.

 

[mshilarious]

It's easy to be nontechnical when you have a setup that works, and you record pretty much all the same things all the time.

But then someday something stops working. Maybe there's a weird hum that wasn't there before. There must be four or five threads on this BBS every day about problems like that. That's great for hobbyists; it's a good resource that we can kick around troubleshooting for a few days until the problem is found. When you have paying clients in the studio, it doesn't work as well.

The other issue with being nontechnical is the amount of time it takes to deal with session issues. Let's say you have a mic locker of 30 mics, and you get a novel source. Let's say the rock band you're recording suddenly wants to do an AC/DC cover, and they break out the bagpipes. Which mic do you use on bagpipes? Which room? Where do you put the mic? If you understand frequency response, polar pattern, microphone operating principles, room acoustics, instrument timbre, sound propagation, etc., you can make that choice much faster than trying every mic in every room in every position. Being quick on a session will save the band money, help keep that business, and get more new business.

I see many basic technical errors that inhibit people, and they don't even realize. Heck, I used to make all sorts of basic technical errors. But I did start by reading a couple of books, and that helped quite a lot. I mean basic stuff in Huber's "Modern Recording Techniques", and the manual for my DAW. Nothing too deep into physics.

Here's one example, I see all the time people say low frequencies need "room to develop". Absolutely 100% false. Put your ear one inch from a bass cab. Hear any low frequencies? I thought so!

What is true is that in a small room, you will have significant peaks and nulls, and if you put a mic in a given position, maybe you'll be in a null and it will sound like there is no bass. If you want to mic the cab from 2 feet away, you have to either experiment with mic position until you find a spot where the room response is relatively flat, treat the room, or move to a larger room! But the advice you would derive from "bass needs room to develop" would be to move further away, which could very well make things worse!

The correct technical answer would be to move the mic closer to the cab, not further, where the direct sound is so much louder than the reflections that standing wave cancellation occurs to a much small degree.

But you already knew that, didn't you

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Yeah,I've heard of that guy.It was Geoff Emerick!How funny is that. I read that in an iterview with him.

There ya go.

What worries me a bit about this is that folks are going to use people like Emerick as an excuse not to actually learn their craft. There's a difference between not knowing the physics of magnetic flux - which of course is not necessary* for most home recordists - and not understanding the fundamentals basics like gain structure, the difference between bit depth and bit rate, and how to wire a balanced vs. an unbalanced cable, and why it's important to know this stuff.

This is even more true of the home recordist than it is for a lead engineer or producer at a grown up's studio like Abbey Road or EMI. Jon touched on this just a bit above, and I'd like to expand it a bit more. Remember that Emerick has worn engineer hats and producer hats, and not always at the same time. There are a whole fleet of producers out there who know nothing of actually running or maintaining a studio, or even how to run a mixing desk. They don't have to, that's what they have engineers for. They just say what they want and it's the engineer's job to figure out the right actions to take to achieve that.

Now, Emerick does know more than that, he does have experience as an actual fader jockey, but that actually puts him ahead of many producers. But at the same time, remember that his time as a *learning* engineer before he really moved on to mostly producer was in the 60s and early 70s. There's been a whole lot of new technology that has become mainstream since then that he probably hasn't even bothered learning on anything more than a superficial level, because he prefers to think in colors and the tech behind the colors is what his engineers are there to figure out.

Someone who runs their own studio doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the technical fundamentals. You have no engineers to do the work for you. You have to run and maintain that studio yourself, and that requires far more technical knowledge than your average HR questioner feels they need to have.

Do you have to be a PhD in physics? No, of course not...*though it sure couldn't hurt. But does that mean you can just blow off all or most technical understanding? Absolutely not. There's a whole lot of fundamental stuff that many here think of as "technical" but really is just basic understanding that can make the difference between a good mix and a great one, or make the difference between a three day mix and a three hour one.

G.

 

[jmorris]

Good points everyone! Glen, Yes Geoff E. sure has done it all.He was in Mastering at Abbey Road before he went to engineer for the Beatles.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Good points everyone! Glen, Yes Geoff E. sure has done it all.He was in Mastering at Abbey Road before he went to engineer for the Beatles.

Which again, to put too fine a point on it, is why one needs to qualify statements he has made like he's not too sharp on the "technical stuff". He may not freebase physics, but his "technical knowledge" far surpasses what most people here think is adequate.

G.

 

[bigtoe]

i use the gear and plug it together... i don't build it...i can maintain it a little (alignment, tubes, replace chips, solder horribly...)...but no more than changing the oil in a car...which i cannot do.

i've had decks and boards go down on me in rental studios mid session and had to figure it out...i did...but never really care to think about how or why. ask me to do it again and i'd have to start at the beginning with the schematic or manual...

i just find it boring. i find communication skills far more important in an engineer...and i have none of those either. this is why i'm selling everything and buying an ice cream truck.

later....
Mike