I was thought as you did Glen. But, I have heard way too many pretty demo's by guys that didn't have a freakin' clue about what they are doing to think that the theory and technical knowledge means much at the end of the day when the mix is done!
I agree, Ed. You misinterpret my apparent emphasis on the textbook stuff. It's all in the ears, the brain an the heart. The tech knowledge is only the set of tools used to help build what the ears, brain and heart create, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm just saying that unless one is born with the audio engineering version of "perfect pitch" (so to speak) - which 99% of us aren't - along with an inbread understanding of how the equipment actually works - which none of us are - they have to start *somewhere*. And comparing one's work to commercial CDs is only going to take one so far when half of the commercial CDs out there actually sound pretty awful from an engineering standpoint.
They're gonna have to use the gear, recording doesn't happen in a vacuum. Sure they can just experiment with twiddling knobs back and forth and seeing what happens, and that's a good thing to do to learn what the gear can and cannot do to their sound. It's definitely something that should be part of their learning process. But in and of itself, it is swinging at a pinata with a blindfold on. Sure it's fun and useful, but it's not very efficient, and a few people are going to get whacked in the nuts along the way.
Actually lerning the basics of what is really going on when the knobs get twiddled can help remove that blindfold and let them lock in on their target faster and understand better what to do the next time they need their knobs twiddled.
For example, how many hours or years would it take just messing around with a parametric EQ before your average Joe Homerecorder stumbled across the idea and method behind the parametric sweep, and what a powerful tool that is for sweeting the sound of just about any track? And how would he know, if his ears aren't yet trained, which frequencis are "offending" and which ones aren't?
Much better that he actually learn that technique from someone else (whether it be a mentor, a book, or an Internet forum) because it will not only help his mixes, but it will help his basic understanding of how the gear works and how to get them most out of it, of how the musical instruments work (with timbres and resonances and all that) and how to get the most out of them, and most of all, provide direct examples of what sounds are intrinsically troublesome and what they actually sound like. It will train his hears and inprove his overall skills.
That one little technique can teach them and their ears skills that go beyond the sweep itself, and be applied to what to listen for in general EQ, instrument miking techniques, and mixing. THAT'S what I call just one tool as a great way of training their ears in what to listen for and what they are actually hearing.
Knowlege, like anything else, is just a tool, it is not an end. The ears are an even better tool, and the tool which trumps all other tools. I agree completly there. But without learning the basic knowledge base along the way, that most of important of tools won't get sharpened anywhere near as sharp or as fast. Don't you agree?
Of course, if someone has the aural taste that is in sound what a hooker's makeup is in sight, all the knowledge and experience in the wold won't make a bit of difference.
G.
