Tim Oliver is the "Senior Consulting Engineer” at Peter Gabriel’s Real World Studios [Tape Op #63] in the English countryside. With over 40 years of experience, Oliver has worked with a who’s who of British rock, including Robert Plant, Brian Eno [#85], New Order, Happy Mondays, Pete Townshend, and The Stone Roses, plus Ireland’s U2, Van Morrison, and Sinéad O’Connor. Oliver started working for Real World in 2014, after having founded Helium Studios with producer Chris Hughes. These days, Tim mostly focuses on mixing, immersive audio, and mastering.
What are the biggest pieces of advice you give engineers starting out?
Listen. Listen to a lot of records. Listen to lot of people. And practice. It's a combination. In the past I would have said it's all about practicality – practical experience – and that formal education is nonsense. But now, going to a school is the only option that people really have. There's no possibility for people to go through a process like I did, which was starting out in a little studio in 1982. I was in a local 4-track commercial studio, which later upgraded to 8-track. Something like that doesn't exist now. People don't really have a choice, other than to do a music tech course. It was a “demo studio,” which is not a thing nowadays. It was a 4-track, 1/4-inch reel-to-reel, TEAC A-3340. We were mastering to a ReVox B77. I still have that machine here now, the very first machine I used to mix down to. But, in any case, proving yourself and getting your foot in the door still remains a huge issue.
What are the frequencies you think are usually missing or are overemphasized in mixes?
Well, obviously the presence is over emphasized and the bottom end quite often, while the midrange is underemphasized.
With “presence,” what frequency range are you talking about?
Well, it's going to be 2 kHz – that area of speech frequencies where people have a perceived loudness that is heard in that range, so we tend to act on it. I certainly used to. What I hear a lot with the young engineers here is that tendency to try and have everything fight around that area to be heard. The natural informational conclusion is for people to try and do something else for everything to be equally heard.
Yeah, and with the low end, do you notice more of that nowadays?
Since the start of this century. The '80s were a brash period. I'll hear '80s records and it really is that nasty harshness. It was a combination of early digital, as well as the trend for bright synths. I remember when I first started, I used to think I could mix. But it was a competition for everything to be heard. I'd think, "I've got to boost the presence for that to be heard," then go and do something else presence-wise for another thing. It all becomes a mush and we can't hear anything. I listen back to some of the old mixes I did – like for Factory Records [Manchester] – and I think, “Oh, god. How could it be possible I did it like that?” [laughter]
How have you learned to deal with that, in terms of creating the space or depth for parts to be heard?
It's listening. It's a bit being able to zoom in and zoom out in perspective. That’s a good practice. I think if I were still alive ten years from now, or if I can still hear then, that if I listened back to a mix I'm doing now, I’d probably think the same negative things as I do about the mixes I did decades earlier than now! We continue evolving in practice. It’s always tricky to put forward a set of "mix rules" because every mix is, or should be, different. When I talk about listening, I mean to sit back, listen, and understand what the piece is trying to say. Get a mental picture of how you can achieve that for maximum resonance. All parts of an arrangement are interrelated, and I use EQs, compression, reverbs, and panning in varying measures to connect the parts in a sculpted space scaled to its intention. I also use volume rides and compression to shape the dynamic transitions – builds and falls – and to make sure something is always leading your ear.
Are you monitoring with a variety of mediums?
I've got my ATC SCM25As, which we have throughout Real World. And the SCM25A is essentially what I'm using. Bowers & Wilkins P7 headphones are also amazing for monitoring.
What are the eras that were a gold standard for sound for you?
In the '80s we'd think about the '70s being shit. It's fashion as well. I listen to '70s records now, and I love them.
What do you think holds up the most with the distance of time?
Classic soul records. Aretha Franklin or Motown, due to the production and the sound on those albums. They’re not perfect, no. But they are so thoughtful and well arranged.
Who are some of your favorite engineers?
There are a lot of people. When I started working, I would listen a lot to what Tom Dowd did. There were a lot of people in the '80s who I thought were great.
What are some of the most misused pieces of audio gear?
Compression, always. EQ, also always. [laughter] It's funny, because when I started out, we’d have an EQ. Also, I suppose I had worse gear back then – but I’d think, “Oh, I've got to use it because it's there. " Now, I use EQ only as a last resort. I spend my time with microphones and get it right, use phase alignment, and all those techniques before I mess with EQs.
If it’s mic’d right, you don't even EQ?
Yeah. I was recording an album last week with piano, French horn, and cello. I'm mixing it now. It's multi mics, and I didn't use much EQ even when mic'ing it up. But I spent a lot trying to get the mics working with each other – using phase alignment techniques and plug-ins. Sound Radix's Auto-Align 2 does auto-aligning, but then I can tweak the delay to shift the tone darker or lighter. But it doesn’t bother me to move mics around and “make spill your friend,” as they say.
What's the largest number of players that you've tracked at the same time?
I've recorded orchestras, but as discrete recording of bands, seven or eight players is the largest I’ve done where I was still trying to get some separation.
What are a few of your favorite microphones?
They tend to be ribbon microphones. I was mixing an album over lockdown and there was an overhead on the kit; it sounded so amazing. I had to phone up the engineer and find out what mics they were. I hadn't heard anything like it. There was such depth and realism. It was an AEA R88 Mk2 stereo ribbon mic. I went and bought one just based on that, and now I use it on everything. Quite extraordinary. Place it six or eight feet away, and it picks up an amazing image. I always have it as an option. It's great for picking up rooms – the place a recording is in. I get a lot of three-dimensional depth from it. The Coles 4038 [ribbon mic] is amazing. Plus, the Neumann valve U 67. Those are my three go-to microphones.
How do you mic vocals? Some people have pretty wild, elaborate techniques.
I used to do all sorts of experimental things – people singing into buckets, lampshades, or whatever for different effects. But now I tend to use a [Neumann] U 47 or U 67. I'll try a few mics if I’m doing a whole album of vocals. I did that a lot with Robert Plant. With him, I ended up using the Wagner U47, a clone of the [Neumann] U 47. I tend to think that a certain mic suits a certain voice. I could probably get into the selection more deeply and find a different mic for every song. If they're doing a ballad, I might want a U 47, and for a more robust vocal, a U 67 mic to give it more energy.
How do you usually mic drum kits?
I tend to have a bunch of close mics on. It's fairly standard, and I don't go into elaborate configurations. I'll have the "Ringo" mic over the kit to compress it and mix in. The Yamaha NS10m subwoofer mic (paired with a Quad 520f) running on the kick to give the bass drum extra weight. And [Shure] SM57s on snare and Sennheiser MD421s on toms that are all close-up. With my R88, I tend to get that, compress it, and then bring other spot mics in and see where I end up. When I'm mixing, depending on what I'm trying to get – whether I want a tight, punchy sound or if I want a room compressed sound – I’ll start either with the overheads and the room mics and bring in spots, or I’ll work the other way around to get tighter sounds. But it depends. It’s case by case.
What is the hardest "common" instrument to mic?
Acoustic guitar is probably the hardest. I move around with a single mic. A good Neumann U 87 and a mid/side AKG C414 until I find a pure point – a sweet spot on the guitar. I use the mid/side to stereo-ize it.
Find the sweet spot and put the two mics next to each other?
I might have headphones on and move the mic around while I'm listening. Once I’ve found the right spot, then I'll get a figure-eight pattern C414 over the top for mid/side stereo. That tends to give the most solid sound. Conga drums are the other difficult one. It's weird, I always hate the congas. [laughter] They always take up too much space. If you can hear them properly, they're taking up too much space. But then I listen to them on Marvin Gaye records, and I love them. It's mostly my failing there. Congas were big in the '80s when I was starting out, and maybe that's why I've learned to hate them because I wasn't ever very good at capturing them!
What do you think about how some engineers like to mic singers and guitars straight above?
Sometimes it seems a bit like a thought experiment. Like they think it's a good idea, but I don't know that it translates to anything in reality. It all depends on the physical space you're in. I do find it quite funny when people put mics in weird places. It's almost attention-seeking, in a way, because those mics never end up being used in a mix. It's like, “Oh, I'm being a wacky adventurous engineer.” [laughter] I don't know…
The engineers are being performative?
Yes. But then there are some people I know, like Ethan Johns [Tape Op #49], who comes here a lot, and he likes to just put a couple of mics on drums. His dad [Glyn Johns, #109] or uncle [Andy Johns #39] had this mic technique with only a kick drum mic and then another mic positioned between the toms and the snare looking down. That was all they did, and he's had success with it.
What is the impact of working at Real World with the history of working with so many diverse, international artists such as Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and Youssou N’Dour?
It's quite freeing. Generally, here at Real World, it's all about performance and the musicians. We’re not really very geeky. People come here thinking we're going to be super geeked out, and everyone will be talking about reverbs, mic condensers, or whatever. And we're not. What it’s all about is getting performances and getting the vibe right. Getting people comfortable in the situation.
A lot of people consider Real World one of the better studios in the world. What do you think are some of the main elements that give the studio that reputation?
It's about combining all of the elements. We have all of the gear here. Although we don’t geek over it, we do have everything, and we have it all well-maintained. What's the point of having all of the best gear if it's not well-maintained? Because I freelance, I go to a lot of studios, and when I go working elsewhere it’s often a disappointment. When I use a bit of gear and it craps out while using it, it's pointless. We've got a full-time maintenance guy, and he is on it all the time. That's quite a rarity now. In this country in the '80s and '90s, working around studios in London, everyone had maintenance engineers. It's not so common now, unfortunately. But that is all only a vehicle to getting the right performance in the right situation for musicians. The entire studio complex was set up around Peter's idea to have everyone in the same room together.
The engineers are not separated?
The engineer, producer, and players are all in one room together to try and make people feel comfortable to record music. It doesn't make life easy for engineers though. [laughter] We can't be bumbling about getting a hi-hat sound for half an hour. Instead, we record it and use trial and error recording. We can have a listen afterwards, but we're always aware that everyone else is sitting around waiting to do another take while we’re checking something. So, we've got to be fairly quick and not worry too much.
When you're recording, are you monitoring with headphones?
Yeah. It all started – not from paranoia exactly – but that feeling that they're separated from the producer, the producer tells the engineer a joke, and they start laughing on the other side the glass. Then the musicians are not party to that, and they think that's it’s them that they're laughing about. That immediately creates a divide. Plus, the communication is so much easier when we’re together in the same room. It comes naturally to me now. I don’t really like working in any other studios that aren’t like that now.
Does that mean that a lot of the recording is without headphones for the players?
Yeah, if they're doing live takes it can be. We have a live mix, so everyone can create their own mixes and have what they want and use headphones or not.
I read a funny quote from you about Real World…
That it is like a high-end hotel, with a free recording studio included.” People often think that we’re going to be super expensive. But when you break down the price – because it includes accommodations and everything – it is actually very cheap. People come here and get looked after.
When you're doing immersive mixing, what are your primary objectives?
Well, it's interesting. I always struggle, because generally – at this moment in time – we're still working with stereo productions which are produced to sit in a stereo picture. In trying to make those work with the immersive elements, I've got to try to make it work in a very different space. I’m not saying anything obviously wrong is being done, but it's slightly the wrong approach. If recordings were to be truly designed as an immersive musical experience, they would have been made differently from the outset. At Real World, a lot of what we're doing – in the immersive side – is about trying to spur people on to produce in the immersive environment and make music to fit better in the immersive format. I'm looking at The Big Room here, and it has got an old 7.1 film mix stage, which isn't used currently. It’s hardly been used over the last ten years, and now – because of the setting up involved – we have to move the big SSL [9000K] desk forward each time, and it is getting too old to be moved now. Converting that instead into a 9.1.4 [Dolby] Atmos room, the room would essentially become an immersive production lab. It would be all about trying to make music for that specific environment. As it becomes more integrated, and people are more aware of immersive, I think that will happen.
You would set people up live in place, where they're going to be in the mix? It'll almost be pre-mixed?
Possibly. You could, or as you're producing and recording it, you could be using multi-mic arrays so that you could hear that back – while you’re making it – exactly as it will be. The performance will respond to that new way of hearing. For me, it's a whole new approach. I can pan things around and go, “Wow, that's clever! I'm impressed.” But am I moved emotionally? The mix I did for you with Sainkho Namtchylak, that worked quite well because it was so spare and atmospheric. You recorded her singing while riding around the canals of Venice [Italy], in a rowboat. The more space, the better for me. You had the whole ambience and feel of what was happening in those live, outdoor recordings. Immersive lends itself much more to that than a rock combo playing, even if it's good. Your album [Where Water Meets Water: Bird Songs & Lullabies] created such a great environment. It triggers the emotions from the music more if you're experiencing the space. Whereas with more orthodox music spreading out into a bigger space, it is a tricky one emotionally. Quite often you don't want to be hearing things behind you because that triggers a fight-or-flight reaction response. There are all sorts of things that need to be considered. I always say that it took 15 years for stereo to come to maturity, which happened with [Pink Floyd's] The Dark Side of the Moon. From the late '50s to when The Dark Side of the Moon was introduced [1973], stereo went through all sorts of odd phases of production, like drums on one side and vocals on the other. All those techniques which we look at now as being embryonic. At this stage of immersive, as much as we're trying force it through and expedite the process, it’ll still be a long learning curve. I think that it will be quite a few years before we get to what it's all about, musically.
You mentioned with mixing that you're focused on emotions.
Yeah. Instinctively, my mixing is all intuitive. And I always respond to, and retain the distance, in order to respond emotionally to what's going on. It’s not always easy.
What are some things that you've learned from major stars, like Robert Plant?
Robert, I've worked with for a long time; 15 years. He's great. He can skid around from place to place. I've learned not to become too attached to anything, because they were great one day and then the next morning they're not. They get ditched often. But his musicality and musical knowledge is amazing. I can’t begin to have anywhere near the depth of reference he has, and what he's bringing with that. He always astounds me when he starts talking about music – the blues, English folk, and all that.
And Brian Eno?
Brian, he's so lovely. In the studio, it feels like he's doing nothing. [laughter] But, that's the beauty of what he does. He'll throw in a few questions, and he'll direct us by questions to get people moving into the right areas. It's lovely to work with him. But yeah, always again, it’s, “What is it that you do?” [laughter] He does it so well, but I can't put my finger on what it is precisely he does. An extraordinary guy.
And how about the late Sinéad O'Connor?
She was so good. I totally admired her. She was one of those people where there’s a question as to where the sound is actually coming from, or where it came from. The music was just something going through her; she opened up to the possibilities and channeled that energy to use. The angrier she got, the more articulate she became. That's part of beauty of her performance, the way that she could focus. It was the same when she argued with someone or had a go at someone. I saw that quite regularly. When I get angry, I get tongue tied and spit feathers. But with her, she became much more articulate and would go in and in and in on a point that she was trying to make with increasing articulacy. I used to marvel at that.
Would she intentionally get herself worked up for vocal takes?
Well, in a way. I'm surprised that it worked. But the more she was worked up, the better her singing became. A lot of vocalists, when they get anxious or agitated, it’s the opposite – they lose it. They need to be in a calmer place and only then they can perform well. With her, it was much different. She was one of the best singers I've ever worked with.
And Peter Gabriel?
He's the calmest and most down to earth person. He's on the ground. I admire that so much about him; that he is a normal, shy guy. But he is a musical genius with what he comes back with.
What are some of your favorite pieces of outboard gear here, ones that you use almost all the time?
The Pultec EQP-1A, the blue one. If I could only have three bits of gear, I'd have three of them. [laughter] They are extraordinary. But Universal Audio have this plug-in clone that's extraordinarily close. Equipment that I use all of the time? The Teletronix LA-2A valve compressor. That and the EQP-1A is a great vocal chain. And the rack [Tech 21] SansAmp [PSA-1] – the original analog version without presets and digital control. It's great for plugging in bass or a guitar straight in as a DI. And they’re old, but I suppose a proper plate reverb is the best. We've got an EMT 140 plate reverb in the big room, which I use whenever I'm there. I love it.
When the plate reverb's available, you prefer it still?
Yeah. I did some mixes in the big room a couple of weeks ago, and the plate reverb was all over it. It's got the density and the depth. It’s a pure tone. The Valhalla Plate reverb plug-in is great. But when I put a plug-in beside a real plate, I'm still missing a certain amount of that perceived depth. It's like the R88 ribbon mic, where I hear the depth and realism of it. The plate adds a color and depth that has not quite been matched, I don't think. I might be wrong, but…
What is most needed to make better records and sounds?
Obviously, what is needed are more studios. I think people now lack an appreciation of the need for a good space to record, since everything can be done in someone’s house or in the box now with a single mic. Yes, you can make records like that, it is true. You can, but a great listening experience comes from hearing a group of people together in a space. So, more studios are needed. And the practice of more listening and patience. I always go back to listening. Just using your ears. It's really all about using ears. Listen, and be patient. 
