David Boothe - Sound Engineer
I moved to Dallas after finishing at IAR because I knew Dallas had a very active recording industry and I am originally from Texas. I considered staying in New York, but decided against it. And believe it or not, it never really occurred to me to move to Los Angeles. (I wouldn't have known what to do once I got there, anyway.) Recording in Dallas was more geared to radio jingles and commercials, which is where I started out. After a few years, I became Chief Engineer at a studio that did mostly gospel albums (this was shortly before Contemporary Christian Music became a genre). There I recorded a great many albums in various styles. At one point, I'd counted over 500 albums in my 7 years at that studio, though most of those were what we called "track albums" - albums where the singer would record with our prerecorded tracks. You could also call that a "vanity" album, although several of our clients were professional singers. I learned a lot about recording everything, but especially vocals – and even coaching singers. While I enjoyed practically everything I did there, the albums using a large orchestra were always my favorites to work on.
By 1984, a combination of the general economic environment, "personal" recording, in the form of inexpensive equipment from Tascam & Fostex, and the emergence of MIDI, were all taking a toll on the mid-range multitrack studios. like the one where I worked. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, I went freelance. At that time the video and film industry was coming on strong fueled by corporate video and commercials. Audio-for-video using timecode was also beginning as an industry. We called it “sweetening” back then. I realized that to continue to make a living, I needed to expand my horizons, so I began moving in the direction of audio-for-video, particularly post production, but production, as well. In other words, like any businessman who wants to survive, I was responding to market conditions. I never made a conscious decision to "not do music." It was just the way things were going. In fact, I have continued to do occasional music projects all along, and still enjoy them when I do.
A key factor here, was that I never wanted to produce – finding bands or artists, developing them, selling their work, etc. I always wanted to be the engineer, the guy with all the toys.
It’s all about craftsmanship. We often talk of our “art,” but I believe it is more properly craftsmanship.
In both music and sound for picture, we have to work with in a set of limitations, to produce a somewhat prescribed end result and, hopefully, generate specific responses from the listener. As sound engineers, it is our job to use the technology we have to realize the concepts of the artists, producers and directors in sound. The jobs I have been most satisfied with are the ones that I was able to accomplish these tasks in a work that had creative integrity.
A good sound engineer is often a musician. A good musician is a story teller.
There really are fewer differences between music and sound for picture than might seem at first. They are mainly one of emphasis: using the proper techniques and technology for the genre at hand. You could say the same between different styles of music: techniques appropriate for a rap artist might not be appropriate for a jazz pianist. Of course, the real fun begins when you start blurring these lines, but that is a calculated decision – in other words, an aspect of craftsmanship.
I’d have to say my favorite project was the 12 years I spent as Audio Director for Barney & Friends. In conjunction with the producers and directors, we were able to start from scratch creating a complete audible environment that was the world of sound in which this implausible creature existed and intersected the “real” world. And we were able to develop and refine it over a period of years, as the characters, stories and environments evolved. We must have done something right, as our work resulted in an Emmy, several Emmy nominations, gold and platinum albums, as well as a few other awards.
With which artist or on which project you would like to work gladly, if you could decide?
I'd like to do more classical recording using classic stereo techniques, with good performers in a good hall.
In the past years large changes arose as a result of the increasing digitization of sound. Which changes did it bring. What are the advantages?
That’s a pretty sweeping question. Of course we can do things now we always wanted to do in the analog days, plus a lot more. But I think there are trade-offs. We can get very precise and microscopic in our control of the sound which is good, especially with sound for picture or spoken word. I love the control as much as anyone. But, I know from experience, it is easy to let technology get in the way of our craft. Sometimes we forget that sound exists in time and that our mix must provide the transportation for a journey we want our listener to take.
For example, though I more often than not mix “in the box,” rarely do I mix “on-screen” with a mouse, reserving that for small “surgical” fixes or global moves. Mixing by graphic design always sounds lifeless and sterile to me. Sound exists in time and a mix must be an organic whole, not just a collection of discrete values and events.
I do feel that in this digital age, we may have lost some of the “romance” that attracted us to the field in the first place. Maybe that’s why vintage gear is commanding such stratospheric prices nowadays.
You are a user of RND Plug-Ins. How are they integrated in the creative process of a project?
I use RND plugins on every mix at Hope For The Heart. These are the best plugins I’ve found for consistently getting desired results without hearing the mechanics. I don’t recall an instance where I’ve inserted an RND plugin, and had to abandon it for something else because I couldn’t get what I wanted. The reverse happen regularly.
What are their specific advantages? Which RND Plug-ins do you use most frequently? What are your favourite features?
Answer to both questions: Uniquel-izer is my “go-to” EQ. I love being able to build exactly the equalizer I need for a given situation.
Dynam-izer is extremely flexible and powerful. There is a bit of a learning curve, however. It’s possible to get very tight but subtle control. It’s also possible to mangle your sound beyond all recognition. With power comes responsibility. (“Don’t point that Dynam-izer at me. It might go off!”)
I’ve wanted Inspector XL ever since I started using DAWs in the early 90s. Frequal-izer’s matching capability is a real time saver when editing together recordings of the same person recorded years apart. And because I mix for broadcast, Finis goes on every master bus.
Here is something I like to do on voiceover tracks. I’ll set up Dynam-izer for 3 zones. The top zone (Zone 1) is set with a fairly high threshold and moderately steep ratio – anywhere from 6:1 to 20:1 depending on voice and situation. The second I set up for a lower threshold and a gentle ratio, maybe 1.5:1 or 2:1. Zone 2 works a lot more but does a lot less than Zone 1. Zone 3 is set for gentle expansion – say between .75:1 and .90:1 – with a low threshold.
Working in “Advanced” mode, it’s easy to adjust the thresholds between the zones for just the right amount of compression and expansion. If carefully set up (don’t forget to use those sticky out things on the sides of your head), the result is a well-controlled voice track, with Zone 3 taking care of restoring the speaker’s breaths to a more natural level.
It’s important that there be an area below Zone 3 where no gain change takes place. Sometimes it’s helpful to use Zone 4 set for 1:1. Listen to be sure Zone 3 isn’t cutting off desirable sound, such as ending consonants on words. By the way, I rarely keep the attack and release times of the zones locked together. I prefer to tailor them to the task each zone is expected to perform.