[edisonmach]

I've been a studio and stage sound engineer for 12 years professionally and practiced as a hobbyist for some time before that. I now work as a broadcast sound engineer on programs like "Sound Stage" "Chicago Tonight" and other live music and interview programs. I was wondering if we have any others populating the forums here. I love what I do and find it much more fun and interesting than research.

 

[19lexicon78]

a pro..

perhaps the gearslutz site is the site for you..

 

[elnero]

I trained as an audio engineer back in the early 90's but I never ended up working in a studio. Did some work with a speaker manufacturer and some other high end audio stuff but that's about it. I also went to school for 3D animation and now am doing a lot of multimedia and commercial work so I do use my training somewhat.

 

[Jahn]

we do indeed have a few that I know of, but i'll leave it to them to "out" themselves. we get all sorts in here!

 

[Sovkiller]

Good that some of you show up, i was wondering whom to ask, but given that some of you are already there, here I go:

I'm curious myself of knowing the magic behind a recording, there are some freaks of the accuracy among our members, and they are always looking for extreme accuracy in recordings, and some gear that show us how a recording is indeed intended to sound, but my question have been always, are there any really accurate recording? that sounds like the real instruments, to let us know how this or that group or band or orchestra is supposed to sound? Or how did you guys treat the original recorded sound before the recording is done? Any EQ, any sound effects added, etc....????

 

[Jahn]

That's a good question Sov - I was only a dabbler in mixing things for some live gigs, but I know live is far diff than studio - live, EQ and mixing levels is key to get your vocals across over the din of the band. Totally not what the band would sound like "unmiked" - and the sound quality is not always the best - just the best way for a live audience to hear what's going on over all the shouting and clapping and bad acoustics etc.

in the studio, it depends on the "vision" of the band and the engineer. something like a Phil Spector "wall of sound" is totally not going to sound like the performance before it hits Phil's mixing board. On the other hand, what leaves that board is probably exactly what Phil wanted to be put on the Master Tape, so in that respect that recording will get you the "real vision" of what the engineer wanted to get on tape.

Totally different than the "Real" performance of course. Say, Yo-yo Ma going to town on the Cello, where the recording engineer just wants to get the heck out of the way and just capture the moment as it was, like an ant in amber. No fake reverb for acoustics or "bumping up the cello bass" here!

Both of the above styles of recording will result in a master tape that is faithful to what the artist or engineer wanted to portray. And to get that on tape, it probably went through some lo-fi gear like the wires in the mixing board, etc. So it's safest to just start your critical listening AFTER the master recording - anything before it really differs greatly in terms of how they put together the final master tape. Just look at what they used to do in the 60's and 80's to edit - they spliced the actual physical tapes for loops, for instance!

 

[Orpheus]

i'm just an amateur... but i do have a decent sized studio ($80,000-100,000 worth.) i've worked on a project for a gothic chic once, and been asked to do some work for a pop artist. but mostly it was just for my own music.

these days cobwebs are growing off the horns on my urei monitors, and a layer of dust covers all the modules--just too busy now to do the music.

but definitely want to get a CD done.

for a sample you can try: http://www.fallingtodreams.com/music...0for%20You.mp3

the song was written and recorded in one single day. so, there's lots of noise and junk. never bothered to make it sound professional--i will when it's time to do the CD. it's just a sample of my style.

orpheus

 

[edisonmach]

Your recordings sound OK. Not really my type of music but nice work.

At home I exclusively record in analog using no processing of any type. My mixdowns are done in the digital domain but all recording is analog. I'm working on an acoustic blues recording for a Local(Chicago) legend that he will release on his own label.

Most of the live set recording work we do is recorded in both analog and digital. The final cut you hear and see when you watch Soundstage is typically mixed and mastered from the digital set. Rarely are the analog recordings even fully proofed. IMHO the best sounding masters are stored away on a set of reels on the floor of the production facility. If you note that we use slightly different terms than the non-broadcast recording engineers,that's because we have to communicate with the broadcast production staff using terms they're familar with.

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

Your recordings sound OK. Not really my type of music but nice work.

be honest man.... they SUCK. heh he. the recordings themselves i mean--sound quality wise. i personally think there's some really good music in there.

but like i said, the song was not touched at all... recorded straight. no eq at all. only compressed enough to fill out digital's dynamic range. lots of noise. even some strange low level high frequency tone.

anyway... when it's time to do the CD, all the songs will be re-produced, re-recorded, you know recomposed/rearranged/remastered. heh he. the works. (i have LOTS of gear... but i use only like 5% of it. that's why nothing is very good sounding ...i think i just like having gear for fun. but anyway, when i get time to redo, it'll sound really professional. it's not like i dunno HOW to make something sound good--the project i did for the gothic chic is pretty good sounding for example.)

...but i am curious about your music. do you have an internet sample? or a commercial release i can buy?

thanks,
orpheus

 

[toor]

I am interested in learning enough about circuits and AMP etc and how they work. Will I get enough of an education in Physics (university lvl) or should I take some engineering to. Would materials engineering help? or would something like electrical be better. Thanks for your help.

PS This is just an interest and I will likely not be working as engineer.

[edit] Sorry to Jack the Thread

 

[Orpheus]

he meant "sound engineer." it's not a technical field. well, not really anyway.

and to address your question--if you want to just do circuits as a hobby, you probably don't want to do the university courses... you can pick up what you need just reading books. i suggest only doing university level engineering courses if that is what you want for a career.

and no, basic physics doesn't teach circuits. just fundamentals, but nothing practical.

 

[skyskraper]

im a rank amateur compared to most of u guys. only been producing for a few years. the mixdown is the hardest. i do house music so its slightly different to recording live instruments and mixing them down. i tell you what though, in my limited experience, its not "easier" to do either. dealing with audio frequencies and psychoaccoustics to get the result you want is a huge pita. ive had some help from some pretty talented guys though, so i know the general direction i want to go.

im about to start helping a friends band engineer in their protools studio, i can feel hours of frustration trying to record a kick drum coming.....

 

[Orpheus]

where you located man?

 

[skyskraper]

perth, western australia.

i run krk rp8's for the bedroom studio. quite nice, unbeatable for the dollar but the bass is fairly extended, a tad more then ideal for my liking. i just ordered a pair of akg k240s hopefully their bass response will be similar to my krks

 

[zowie]

Orpheus --
Nice music. Was that recording done with analogue tape by any chance?