• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

why do recording engineers do this ?

D

donberry

Super Member
Of course we all know about them mixing for ipods etc, but another huge pet peeve of mine - the sound stage.
I will be listening to a song and the sound stage may seem fairly accurate, everybody seemingly where they are supposed to be, then maybe in the middle of the song, a sax or some other instrument similar to this will be pretty prevalent - The guitar will have pretty much stopped playing and the sax or whatever is seemingly in the exact same position as the guitar was. Then when the sax (or whatever) winds down, the guitar , bass or whatever, will pick up in the exact same spot. Not sure if I explained that very clear, but I hate that and it sort of ruins the whole mood for me. If they were on stage, that would mean the guitar or whatever instrument moved out of the way, the other instrument, sax for this example, moved into that same position, played, then stepped out of the way and the other musician came back to the same spot.........is not normally how it works on stage. The musician who may have a more prevalent role at the moment may step up, but they aren't shuffling around positions like that.

Next - I am listening to Dylan, something off Blood on the Tracks, i think it was "Your a big girl now". Great song, I really like it, BUT - it is an acoustical song, so Dylan would be standing or sitting there, middle of the stage playing his guitar and harmonica while singing.
In the recording, it is as though they have 3 acoustic guitars on stage at once. One in the middle, one on the left and one on the right. Now I can see another guitar backing him up, but the one guitar on the left sure sounds like Dylan is playing it, but they split it up for "stereo" purposes I guess.

Neil Young does this also on some of his recordings. Out on the Weekend, I love that song. But the drums are playing behind center, except every time he hits one of the tom-toms ? (I do not know the names of the different drum parts) it happens real wide to the left. The drummer must have the longest arms in the world.

Just some pet peeves that drove me nuts today
 
Register to hide this ad
You possibly might be taking this all a bit too seriously, maybe the engineers "image" isnt based on a "soundstage".......
I would say there is two schools of image, the school based on if there was a band on stage, the other based on a fictitious image based on making a song sound "HUGE", I mean really, you know there is only one guitarist in the band, but then the engineer wants the chorus to open up, so the one guitarist becomes FOUR guitarists for the chorus, with the four guitar tracks hard panned, so the guitar image goes wide.......I love that.....I do that sort pf thing live all time, its one of my tricks.....I multiply the guitar with a stereo effect.....
However, there is only one way to record an orchestra, and one way people like to hear them.....mostly at least...
Unless its an orchestral backing in a contemporary song or something.......
I think an open mind is order listening music .....It would be boring if all music was imaged and mixed the same......or with regard to where tyhe musicians are situated on stage....
By the way, I was mixing a BB King show last week, and his horn players for one song, took their solos in his vocal mic while he was offstage.......So you know, those sorts of things do happen.......
FWIW......
 
a sound engineers "sound stage" is essentially a potentiometer with 180º sweep. You can be either panned left or right, or somewhere in between. A potentiometer does not a sound stage make.
 
Those little quirks can be based on ego (ie. 'turn my part up louder'), creativity, sloppiness or the best take musically wasn't necessarily the best take sonically. Especially with the older recordings, the number of channels in a multitrack studio was limited so various instruments were recorded, then mixed to a one or two channel master, then bounced/mixed again within the multitrack environment to add more instruments. It was common for drums and bass to be mixed together so they would likely have the same placement in the soundstage. Likewise, sax and guitar end up the same placement as lead instruments in the front of the mix. It is unlikely they were recording live in the same room and moving to one mike due to the sheer volume of the instruments and the necessity of isolating each from each other for the sake of recording. The recording just provided the illusion that it was taking place on a single imaginary stage. It's all how the knobs are twisted and levels set. As mentioned before, soundstage is simply how the instruments are placed left to right or forward/backward in the mix. When mixed together, the illusion of a band on stage is created.

In theory, if you had one mic, one amp and two artists (say a sax player and an acoustic guitar) each taking their turn, playing one at a time while you watched them live and sharing the mic, you'd hear exactly what you heard. Hence the theory of 'taking center stage.'

There are so many variables that can impact individual instrument placement in recordings that whole books are written on the subject. Actually, one of my pet peeves of more recent recordings is lack of spaciousness and dynamics due to the severe compression and limiting placed on the recording. I like these older recordings no matter how they are mixed and to me they sound very 'realistic.' I imagine that what you are hearing is just how the artist wanted it heard in the first place. I say just enjoy the music.
 
Last edited:
Bozzmonster said:
Actually, one of my pet peeves of more recent recordings is lack of spaciousness and dynamics due to the severe compression and limiting placed on the recording. I like these older recordings no matter how they are mixed and to me they sound very 'realistic.' I imagine that what you are hearing is just what the artist wanted it heard in the first place. I say just enjoy the music.
Click to expand...

I couldnt agree more!!!.....:thmbsp:
 
I agree with all of the above. You can usually tell if an instrument has been miced differently to get a certain affect. Like a vocal miced up close with one microphone while a guitar is stereo miced and then exaggerated in space. Also sometimes room reflections can take there toll as far as imaging goes. Just MHO.
Dan
 
In reference to the second paragraph, this is a semi-popular reverb DSP. I don't know why they do it either, because a simple echo reverb sounds much better. I don't prefer that effect because I think it just doesn't sound as good.
Sometimes the guy running the sound might use two mics and purposely time them or place them differently on purpose to make it sound the same way without using digital effects...I still don't like it.
 
I imagine that what you are hearing is just what the artist wanted it heard in the first place. I say just enjoy the music.
Click to expand...
I know it should not bother me, but , for example, when I listen to "out on the weekend now" , a song which I really like, when the drums are coming from the middle of the stage and for some reason whenever he hits that one tom, it comes thru the left speaker only and it is really wide left, it just really distracts from the rest of the song. Instead of just enjoying it, I am "cringing" in my mind every time he hits it.
I have no doubt Neil Young approved it before it was released, so it is apparently how the artist wants it, but it just seems so strange to me.

I really do not sit and try to analyze the music any more. But tho it shouldn't, those things stick out like a sore thumb to me.

Obviously I hate cd's that have been compressed etc and that is nothing new that hasn't been talked about a million times.
But a recent post about something else brought up how important the sound stage is to me and for some strange reason, they can have the oddest things which , to me and just my opinion, distract from more so then add to anything.

Usually on older recordings like Dylan, I just hit the mono switch and it sounds much better to me. If he is doing his acoustic stuff as he did in his early days, I just prefer the guitar and harmonica not be coming from all over the place.
 
Last edited:
One of the problems over the ages has been how to properly record a single performer with instrument(s) in stereo. One performer et.al. is essentially (stage wise) monophonic. Relegating different parts of the one to different channels creates the famous "10' arm" effect.
 
Dont be fooled for a minute that Musicians/songwriters artists, know anything about sound, more often than not they dont, and that is why the employ particular producers and engineers......
There are those who produce their own stuff, but mostly, and having worked with some fairly notable artists, they have some really F#$%ed up ideas about sound, and what sounds good, but holy crap, can they play, and can they write songs........Yes they can.....
A producer can as much ruin an album as make it into something incredibly awesome.........and the artist put their entire faith in them at times....
 
Have any of you guys ever listened to true two channel stereo recordings?
Water Lily Acoustics, Kavi Alexander
He's an amazing recordist, pure to the essence, unaltered recordings. He records w/ Tim DeParavincini (name sp?, I'm winging it here; I'm close.) EAR tube gear; custom EAR analog tube r2r, custom EAR analog tube preamps and Pearl rectangular capsule large diaphragm mics. This stuff is truly a dream rig.

At any rate, Kavi does two channel stereo recordings, straight to tape recordings that are amazingly realistic, completely unprocessed/unedited; from a fabulous sounding church sanctuary in Santa Barbara.
About as fine an example of his work as you'll find is A Meeting by the River - Ry Cooder and V.M. Bhatt

When you listen to that sort of thing, it really changes your perspective on the loudness wars, over-processed studio recordings. I can't recommend a true two channel stereo recording enough - especially when finding fault in this two musicians occupying the same sound imagery point. Two mics, in stereo technique patterning, in front of an ensemble, will reveal an amazing natural sound imaging, naturally panned, properly placed in the playback sound image.
 
Last edited:
mfrench said:
a sound engineers "sound stage" is essentially a potentiometer with 180º sweep. You can be either panned left or right, or somewhere in between. A potentiometer does not a sound stage make.
Click to expand...

The implications of this are very impostant and if you think about it also answer this topics question.

Not all production means are the same though, I wonder how this screen from Jazzmutant's Dexter (DAW controller/software) relates to the humble 'potentiometer'.

jazzmutant_dexter_surround1.jpg


dexter_surround.jpg
 
rifftrax said:
THANK YOU. At least someone gets this.
Click to expand...
Yes, often they are as 'creative' as the musicians and equally often with appalling results. However, I'll admit we can't always blame the producer/engineer as the musicians themselves have access to all manner of nasty digital effects processors and not just of late. Even as far back as 40 years ago some musicians were preferring, say, their drum kits to sound as if they were being played in a bathroom while the rest of the band sounded as if they were playing in anything from a cathedral to a public phone booth positioned on a busy freeway.
 
Peter Walker said:
Yes, often they are as 'creative' as the musicians and equally often with appalling results. However, I'll admit we can't always blame the producer/engineer as the musicians themselves have access to all manner of nasty digital effects processors and not just of late. Even as far back as 40 years ago some musicians were preferring, say, their drum kits to sound as if they were being played in a bathroom while the rest of the band sounded as if they were playing in anything from a cathedral to a public phone booth positioned on a busy freeway.
Click to expand...


Exactly. A recording engineer (and quite often, even the producer) is basically a hired gun. Their job is to get what the artist wants onto tape, not to dictate the end result (mixing and mastering). The artist/s and many times, their label's A&R person, are ultimately responsible for the end product. If you're disturbed by an odd soundstage, blame the artist. Nine times out of ten, it's their fault. You're hearing what they want you to hear.
 
ElPee said:
Exactly. A recording engineer (and quite often, even the producer) is basically a hired gun. Their job is to get what the artist wants onto tape, not to dictate the end result (mixing and mastering). The artist/s and many times, their label's A&R person, are ultimately responsible for the end product. If you're disturbed by an odd soundstage, blame the artist. Nine times out of ten, it's their fault. You're hearing what they want you to hear.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that, however, personal observation tells me that at many recording sessions so much coke, speed, booze, smack etc (make your own list) has been consumed those involved couldn't tell the difference between a mangled master tape and the original. :zoom:Reminds me of one session I attended where the lead guitarist kept asking for the replay to be turned up louder and louder.:guitar: The volume was shattering when one of the engineers had an idea. He later told me he'd simply added large amounts of odd order distortion to the replay chain and the complaining guitarist blurted."Yeh, man, that's it- great. We can all go home now" :rockon:The recording was released without the odd order distortion & from what I heard no-one in the band noticed any difference . Go figure.
No names - OK?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom