Another question for engineers

[lakland]

Guys...thanks for your contributions on the other "engineers" thread.

Stephen T made an interesting comment about an engineer's "signature sound". I wanted to see if we could get some discussion on this topic. Us newbie engineers would greatly benefit from this.

I have a couple of questions:

a. What is YOUR signature sound? Is it the mix, compression, etc. etc.
b. When and how did you get there? Was it by chance or by choice?
c. Has it evolved since? If yes, how?

Thanks

[David Polich]

I think this thread would be more at home in either the "General Recording"
or "Theoretical Discussions...Off Topic" sections.

[Armageddon]

Those are tough questions to answer, because everyone's signature "sound" is based on a series of personal choices and tastes. Someone with a drummer's background or the belief that the drums should be most prominent in the mix may have "huge drums", or another may place more emphasis on the bass, or a progressive rock engineer might layer four or five guitar parts per side to get a huge guitar sound, or someone might thicken vocals with a special chorus, or prefer a certain compressor on guitars, or use a certain type of reverb. Plus, most mix engineers aren't also mastering engineers, so you then defer to someone else's taste in that department. If you're emulating another engineer's work, you're actually chasing someone else's sound, but if you're struggling to find your own voice, the only way to do so is to go your own way and find out what works and doesn't work for you. If it sounds right to you, then it is right, no matter how you get there or what you've done to achieve that goal.

[Shooshie]

If people consciously develop a signature sound, and if that is something they arrive at 100% by choice, then power to them. I'm envious that they are so capable. I have to wonder, however, if some of what we call "signature sound" is just a given person's natural abilities and biases, their ears, their formative years of listening, and so forth -- in other words, could it be something that is just their own set of responses, and not something they consciously choose? Sure, you can consciously choose a compressor, an EQ, and a set of convolution reverb IR's. But even those come from a personal set of tastes that were not consciously chosen, but acquired.

I ask these things, because I know that as a musician we each have signature sounds, but we did not choose most of the parameters of those sounds any more than we chose the sound of our voice or the shape of our face. A friend long ago observed that when we swapped horns, I still sounded like me, and he still sounded like him, even though we had totally different equipment at that point. Granted, I sounded like me playing his saxophone and reed. It wasn't ideal. But you could still tell who was playing.

That's one reason I never tried to sound like anyone else. I was me. There was no point in sounding like another player, and any attempt to do so would only be measured by how much you failed. I think the same thing applies to signature sounds in recording: any attempt to sound like your favorite engineer will only be measured by how much you failed to do so. And what happens when you start breaking away from that sound? Then you aren't being true to the sound anymore, but you can hardly call that as "wanting to develop a sound of my own," when already 90% of your sound is really someone else's.

So, my conclusion has always been to listen to lots of styles, lots of sounds, and assimilate them all. But when it comes to creating something, do it in a vacuum; let your imagination run wild, and follow it where it leads. That said, I've copied other people's mixes by request, and it's very easy to do, most of the time. (unless they're using some technique you can't crack) You just use your ears and apply the tools that change what you have into what you hear. But I'm much happier when I ignore everyone else's sounds, and just come up with what I want to hear.

Maybe I'm missing the point, and maybe this thread is really just about posting the equipment and techniques you tend to use to get what you want. That's cool; I'm just saying that our sounds are like our voices. We don't choose them so much as find ourselves responding to what we like.

Excuse me if I'm missing the point. I do that a lot.

Shooshie

[James Steele]

I think this thread would be more at home in either the "General Recording"
or "Theoretical Discussions...Off Topic" sections.

Agreed. It is written so let it be done.

[Phil O]

...I have to wonder, however, if some of what we call "signature sound" is just a given person's natural abilities and biases, their ears, their formative years of listening, and so forth -- in other words, could it be something that is just their own set of responses, and not something they consciously choose? Sure, you can consciously choose a compressor, an EQ, and a set of convolution reverb IR's. But even those come from a personal set of tastes that were not consciously chosen, but acquired...

I think Shooshie hit the nail on the head. Even if someone has worked consciously towards developing their own sound, the direction in which they move is probably in response to the factors Shooshie suggests.

As far as my mixes go, I find that many pop mixes today have the vocals a bit buried. Perhaps it's my "old" ears. I grew up listening to music that was often centered around the singer/s. Or perhaps it's that I like to clearly understand the words without struggling. Dunno, but I guess one of the signatures of my sound involves clear, up front vocals. Unless of course the client objects, which does happen from time to time.

Phil

[stephentayler]

Some engineers specialise in a particular style of music, and develop a sound specific to that genre.

I have always worked with an extremely diverse collection of music with no particular common thread, except for mostly really fascinating voices. So I have covered rock, jazz rock, prog rock, new wave, electro pop, acoustic, world and world-fusion, mainstream pop, art rock, electronica etc etc.... I'm glad I never got stuck in a particular pigeon-hole......

Some people have said that whatever I do it always has my stamp..... well I can only put that down to my personal perception of where to place sounds within a mix. To me I look at a mix as being a sonic environment, rather than just a representation of the component instruments and voices. To me there is no particular consistent method or technique, I just use the tools available to try and translate what's going on in my head.

And I would say that my approach is constantly evolving.....

A producer and good friend once said to me ‘I want to make great records, not great recordings’ and that always stuck with me.

But then what do I know!!

warmest wotnots

SWT

[David Polich]

I don't really think any engineer has a signature sound. There are producers
who have had a signature approach to making records - George Martin, Todd Rundgren, Roy Thomas Baker, Alan Parsons, etc. And there are
legendary engineers who just happened to have worked on records that later
became famous, and who developed certain techniques (mostly to solve problems
or satisfy what the artist was looking to do). Examples - Glyn Johns, Eddie Kramer, Eddie Offord.

Records have signature sounds because of what the artists envisioned, combined
with the producers who worked with them to make it happen. Todd Rundgren produced a Cheap Trick album that went nowhere and actually wasn't very good,
so there is a case where a signature approach didn't make a difference. In other words, the engineer and producer really is only as good as the music
he or she is working on.

[lakland]

... I have to wonder, however, if some of what we call "signature sound" is just a given person's natural abilities and biases, their ears, their formative years of listening, and so forth -- in other words, could it be something that is just their own set of responses, and not something they consciously choose? Sure, you can consciously choose a compressor, an EQ, and a set of convolution reverb IR's. But even those come from a personal set of tastes that were not consciously chosen, but acquired.
Shooshie

Shoosh...I agree with your commentary. The essence of my question was something a little more personal. For example: If I were to hear a song, how would I know that Shooshie mixed this cut? What elements of the mix would stand out?

Phil O mentioned that his preference is louder vocals.

[lakland]

I don't really think any engineer has a signature sound. There are producers
who have had a signature approach to making records - George Martin, Todd Rundgren, Roy Thomas Baker, Alan Parsons, etc. And there are
legendary engineers who just happened to have worked on records that later
became famous, and who developed certain techniques (mostly to solve problems
or satisfy what the artist was looking to do). Examples - Glyn Johns, Eddie Kramer, Eddie Offord.

Records have signature sounds because of what the artists envisioned, combined
with the producers who worked with them to make it happen. Todd Rundgren produced a Cheap Trick album that went nowhere and actually wasn't very good,
so there is a case where a signature approach didn't make a difference. In other words, the engineer and producer really is only as good as the music
he or she is working on.

Good stuff, David!

A question, if I may:
Let's take George Martin for example. What do you hear on the Beatles albums that tell you it's a George Martin production (signature approach)? In other words, what is his contribution to the albums that is so unique?

[Armageddon]

I figured this one got moved! There's actually a lot of records shaped purely by their engineers/producers. Sometimes, a band or performer has a direction in mind, and sometimes, it's a product of the engineers and producers ... sometimes, a combination. Also, if you notice, an artist's output seems to change with the times, so a signature sound can evolve as technology, recording techniques and current trends dictate. There seems to be a lot of emphasis these days on try to retain a "classic sound", whatever that means, but if you listen to a great deal of music from the Eighties, you heard everyone embracing trappings of that period, like huge drums, arpeggiated synths, glassy guitars and samplers. We live in a time now where, for a few thousand dollars, you can have access to the "gear" and overall sound of any time period you want.

[mikehalloran]

> ‘I want to make great records, not great recordings’ and that always stuck with me.<

Yes!

[buzzsmith]

I don't really think any engineer has a signature sound...In other words, the engineer and producer really is only as good as the music he or she is working on.

I agree.

Buzzy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan Worley]

My preference is that the mix engineer remain invisible (most of the time). That is, even though they may do ten thousand different things in a mix, it should sound like they didn't do anything. It just flowed out of the artist that way. I want to hear the song not the mix. This, of course, does not apply to genres in which the remixer is part of the style.

My number one goal is to let the song speak for itself without getting in the way; to help it deliver its message clearly. I'm a minimalist and a naturalist when it comes to mixing. Imperfections create perfection in my book (not to be confused with sloppiness). That means I have no talent or desire for mixing certain genres, and that some people just don't like what I do no matter what style I work in.

But that sure doesn't mean I don't work at it.

Geez, I sound so serious, but I'm not, I'm a fun guy.

c-ya,

Dan Worley