Article

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

The Most Important Thing In Audio Is…? The Conundrum Of “Ears Versus Education”

For the best results in audio mixing, context is vital. But can it be taught?

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the role musical education plays in audio mixing. There have been numerous threads about the subject in several on-line forums, and the responses seem evenly divided between “not needed but it doesn’t hurt” and “it’s actually a hindrance” and “it certainly helps.”

Because I earned a degree in music performance, I’m biased on the subject, with my opinion leaning toward the “it helps” camp. Still, I can’t help but wonder if it really does…

When evaluating the handiwork of mix engineers, there are plenty of guys and gals that indeed do not have formal musical training. An obvious example is Al Schmitt, who’s earned a stockpile of Grammy Awards for efforts with artists such as Frank Sinatra, Toto, Diana Krall and numerous others.

Even though he’s a studio engineer, I think his example can still be applied to sound reinforcement. One thing’s for sure – Mr. Schmitt has never been called “unmusical,” or at least I’ve never heard it said.

My hunch is although he doesn’t have “formal” musical training, he still has listening skills quite sensitive to musical aesthetics, an amazing sense not only for the technical but also for how all of the sounds relate to one another in context.

This leads us to a key point: for the best results in audio mixing, context is vital. But can it be taught?

MATTER OF STYLE
With any art form, there are those who specialize in a particular style and then those who seem to be able to transcend their particular era and become “timeless.” Relating this to audio, I’ve heard mix engineers who seem to meld their style of mixing to the music itself, while others try to force the music into their mixing style.

Back when I was touring as a mix engineer for the Airmen of Note (U.S. Air Force Jazz Band), I found it was important to spend time with the band in rehearsal to get a sense of the issues at hand: arrangement, internal balance within sections and between sections, and the general “feel” produced by the music.

In the process, I came to the conclusion that the drums, along with the bass, generate a certain rhythmic element that actually drove the way the horn players stayed “in the groove.” It was an actual physical thing, where the acoustic wave from the kick drum had an impact on the diaphragms of the horn players. Stand close enough to this type of group while they’re playing, and you can pick up this sensation.

So I set about trying to bring some of that feel to the audience while I mixed, but without making it too overpowering or “rock ‘n’ roll” – which I felt would not be representative of the big band style. The approach involved how I mic’d the drums (three mics – kick, and two overheads), use of EQ (not much, except to bring out certain things and make sure other elements didn’t become overbearing) and setting the drum levels relative to the rest of the mix (supporting the sound).

I felt that the result was a convincing live portrayal of the band, bringing out the dynamics and impact they worked so hard to do attain, but without too much power from the rhythm section. But did my music education help me attain this, or was it some innate musical sense that can’t be taught?

THE INNER VOICES
Another aspect of mixing, and it was clearly important in big band work, is the inner voices. No, I don’t mean the little voices in my head saying, “check out that woman in the third row.” Rather, I’m referring to the relationships of all the instruments between the bass and cymbals.

Any arrangement - rock, jazz, classical, or whatever - relies on specific voicings. I’m talking about the order of notes from the lowest to the highest within a chord. As a mixer, if you’re not aware of this, then you likely don’t realize that the third of a chord determines whether it’s major or minor, that the fifth along with the root make up the “frame” of the chord, and that everything above the fifth is harmonic embellishment but nevertheless important in terms of leading notes, harmony, and what kinds of scales might be used for melodic material.

And perhaps the mixer might miss (or not know) that inversions (chords where the root, third, etc. are stacked out of order) are extremely important to musical harmony, and thus are a critical element of a musical style like jazz. An example is the horn section for a swing band (think Brian Setzer’s Dirty Boogie), where if one of the horn mics is turned up too “hot,” then the wrong note in some chords may be emphasized. The difference might be subtle, but it may also throw a certain amount of “aural sand” into the musical experience for at least a portion of the audience. And let’s face it – it’s just not right.

But these are “rules of thumb” taught by the educational process. Another way to figure out “who’s playing what” might be to listen and think, without cluttering up the works with confusing terminology. In other words, how do you think it sounds?

THE NEW RESPONSE
“The most important tool in audio is… ?” I ask this question often when giving presentations. It used to be that the answer I wanted to hear was “our ears.” Recently, however, I’ve preferred the response of “our brains.”

Of course, good ears are a critical component in mixing, and without them, there wouldn’t be much of a purpose for audio systems. (Although I’m sure that marketing departments would find a way to put a spin on that!)

But my thinking began to change as I realized that without the brain, what the ears are telling us can’t be interpreted and no plan of action can be developed. In other words, we may hear a problem, but if we can’t produce a solution, then what’s the point?

For example, if there’s a buzz in the system, is it at 60 Hz? 120 Hz? 180 Hz? And if it’s indeed at 60 Hz, where to start in looking for a solution?

On the flip side, those without the sense to apply their knowledge in order to generate an aesthetically pleasing mix lead me to question the value of any understanding of things like gain structure and signal flow, let alone voicing and spatial relationships. In other words, it may be technically “right” but does it sound good?

Perhaps their mixes are “good enough,” and certainly any situation involving art and technology must by nature be a form of compromise. However, if you knew of a way to improve your mixes, wouldn’t you want to employ it?

EQUAL VALUE
My resolution to these conundrums has been to settle on the theory that both musical ears and musical education have relatively equal value, and therefore, for better mixes, the focus should be on both. My theory guidelines track along these lines:

- If considering attending an audio school, see if the curriculum includes courses in musical training (ear training, theory, etc.). Purely technical audio training can result in a set of skills, but musical training allows you to “speak the language” with musicians and within your own mind.

- Spend a lot of time listening to a wide variety of music, and try to determine the common elements between them as well as those things that distinguish between different styles. It’s also vital to listen to acoustic music as much as possible – if you don’t know what instruments sound like un-amplified, where is your frame of reference?

- Come to terms with your own mix style and types of music. There are even differences between punk music from New York and L.A., right? (I suppose I’m showing my age with that one.)

- If the music you’re mixing was developed before amplification (classical, big band jazz, etc.), understand the context, both musically and in terms of acoustics. For example, what types of rooms originally hosted these types of performances? In other words, why put major amounts of reverb on a baritone sax solo in a big band performance? It just doesn’t fit. Not only that, but the players and the audience will expect to hear it as it is supposed to sound.

The track record of many successful folks working as mixers in pro audio without a formal musical education makes a persuasive argument that such an education may be largely irrelevant towards enhancing mix skills. Perhaps their abilities and success are a matter of an innate, natural musical sense, along with great ears and a lot of real-world experience.

Yet it also begs the question: would they be even better at what they do with further learning? Aren’t we all usually better for having learned more?

Karl Winkler is director of business development for Lectrosonics and has worked in professional audio for more than 15 years.

{extended}