Brings a question to mind: There's probably no standard, but shouldn't recording engineers be required to post hearing test results . . . say, maybe yearly? Maybe this should be required in the industry standards--if there are standards for this industry. Likely there are none as it seems to be as much art as technical knowledge.
Ears and their critical position in the recording chain never occurred to me until looking through this thread. I suspect recording artists never think about this or that who ever is doing and mixing their recordings might be in fact handicapped by hearing loss as the their years progress.
I wonder how often something like this happens in the recording industry? Someone becomes famous for recording/mixing the Beatles, for example, 30 years later they've lost a significant portion of their hearing--as will happen to most people--but they still work and produce because they are famous, and no one notices the changes in what they produce over time because the changes are so gradual.
There must be some controls in place. Otherwise, I suppose it's just up to the singer/artist themselves to complain that they feel a final mix sounds "off".
Anyway, after all the talk of the equipment and various levels of cost and perfection, the most critical equipment--the human ear--seems to get a pass with no further testing or controls needed.
I'm suddenly seeing the entire recording industry through new eyes, or maybe new ears! :-)
Great posts in this thread. I realize now that I personally don't really need to worry about the highest end equipment. My ears are not bad, but after seeing my test results, I know they are not even close to what they were when I was 25. I've lost a lot of the high frequencies, especially at low volumes.
I can't imagine what my final mixed version of anything would sound like to a teenager with good ears after I compensated at the mixing board to make it sound good to my damaged ears. Perfect for me--not so much for a consumer, for sure.
|