Written by I recently had the privilege of conducting an extensive interview with Daniel Dettwiler, one of Europe’s leading recording engineers specializing in jazz. What was initially planned as a one-hour conversation evolved into a comprehensive discussion spanning several hours over two days. Our dialogue covered a wide range of topics highly relevant to musicians, occasionally delving into technical aspects that enthusiasts will find particularly informative and inspiring.
Given the interview’s length and depth, I’ve decided to present it in two parts. This article features the first instalment, with the second part scheduled for publication later this week. For those unfamiliar with Daniel Dettwiler, I’ll begin with a brief introduction to provide context for his expertise and significance in the field of jazz recording.
Daniel Dettwiler, born in 1974, is a renowned Swiss recording engineer and producer, particularly well known for his work in the jazz genre. After studying Audio-Design at the Academy of Music in Basel from 1996 to 2001, he founded Idee und Klang Studio in 2002, which has become one of Switzerland’s premier recording facilities.
Dettwiler’s expertise in jazz recording is evident through his impressive portfolio of collaborations. He has worked with numerous acclaimed jazz artists and labels, including productions for ECM Records, featuring artists like Pierre Favre. His client list also boasts notable names such as Kurt Rosenwinkel, Nils Wogram, Mark Turner, and Jorge Rossy. What sets Dettwiler apart in the jazz recording world is his use of an extensive collection of historic microphones, considered one of the most significant in Europe. This, combined with his studio’s impressive analog outboard gear, allows him to capture the nuances and warmth essential to producing the highest quality recordings.
Dettwiler’s approach to jazz recording is characterized by his attention to acoustic detail and his ability to create a natural, spacious sound that respects the integrity of the music. His work extends beyond just recording, as he is also known for his mixing and mastering skills, often preferring to handle these aspects himself to maintain the vision of the recording.
In addition to his studio work, Dettwiler shares his knowledge as a professor of Sound Engineering at the Musikhochschule Basel as well as the Zurich University of Arts and through various workshops and conferences, including the “Sheer Pleasure of Sound” event he organized with legendary engineers Al Schmitt and George Massenburg in 2019. So now we know a little more about Daniel, Let’s get into the interview.
Andrew Read: Welcome Daniel, It’s great to finally meet you and thanks for taking the time to speak with me. Let’s start at the beginning, how did you get started in audio engineering?
Daniel Dettwiler: It all began when I was a teenager. I was always interested in music, playing piano and being in bands. I bought my first mixing desk, a 12-channel Fostex, for home recording. I started by recreating film music like “The NeverEnding Story” with two synthesizers. It was great fun trying to find similar sounds and mix them together on tape. Later, I upgraded to a Mackie 24/8-Bus when I was about 16.
AR: What was your first professional experience in audio engineering?
DD: My first real break came through a friendship with a conductor. We decided to offer our services to the Jecklin label, a well-known Swiss classical music label at the time. They had a pop musician, Neil Filby from the UK, who wanted to release a CD he had recorded and mixed himself. We listened to it and thought it wasn’t mixed well enough to just master. So we proposed to the label that they should pay for a new mix.
We got about 14 days to mix the album completely from scratch. I used my Mackie 24/8-Bus, and the conductor had a Soundcraft mixing desk with 24 channels. We put them together to create a large 48-track desk. Everything was on ADAT back then. We hired some effect units and borrowed all the equipment we needed. I did the mixing, and it turned out quite well. Even when I listen to it today, I’m surprised by how good it is.
Any way We took it to the biggest mastering studio in Switzerland, paid for by Jecklin. The mastering engineer was impressed, saying, “Oh, this is your first mixing job, Daniel? Man, that’s really good.” That’s when I thought maybe I should do this professionally and study it further. It was fun, and I liked it. So I did, and that was basically how I got started in audio engineering.
AR: You mentioned playing piano and being in bands. Does this mean you approach engineering from a musical perspective as well?
DD: Yes, I have musical experience, but it’s important to clarify that I’m not a professional musician. I’m pretty good at piano and can accompany a pop singer or play in a gospel choir easily, but I couldn’t play in a jazz band or sight-read complex pieces. I’m a professional sound engineer who plays music as a hobby, not the other way around. This distinction is crucial because if I were to call myself a professional musician, it would diminish the skills of the actual professional musicians I record.
In sound engineering, we’re seeing the opposite situation. Many musicians claim they’re engineers, but they’re not truly professional in that field. Just being able to operate Logic or occasionally produce a good mix doesn’t make you a professional sound engineer. Becoming a professional sound engineer requires years of daily training and practice. That said, a trained musician can become a sound engineer, and it’s not even that difficult, as they already have the ability to listen. It just needs training, as the way of listening is slightly different. In my course ‘The Mixing Bible,’ I teach how to analyse sound to become a better mixer.
AR: How has the introduction of digital audio workstations (DAWs) like Pro Tools, Cubase and Logic affected the industry?
DD: The lines between roles have been blurred significantly since the introduction of DAWs. Even before that, with the introduction of more accessible multi-track recording equipment like the Tascam Porta Studio, we started to see this blurring of lines between musicians and engineers.
AR: Can you elaborate on how the accessibility of recording technology has changed the industry?
DD: Absolutely. Before, you had big studios with 24-track systems that only professional studios could afford, and you needed to be a trained engineer to operate them. The shift really started with the introduction of ADATs. Suddenly, for about $15,000, you could buy an eight-track recorder, and for another $10,000, you could get a 24-track Mackie desk. So for under $50,000, you could have all the technology needed to record a band. This was a huge drop from the previous $5,000,000 plus setups of commercial facilities.
AR: How did this accessibility impact the quality of recordings?
DD: Many musicians who weren’t successful in their performance careers saw an opportunity to record their friends. They’d invest $50,000 in a basic setup with poor acoustics and start doing what they called “professional recording,” but it was really just glorified home recording. With modern DAWs, it’s even easier and cheaper to set up a recording system.
AR: Do you see this as a problem for the industry?
DD: It’s not inherently a problem – after all, you can buy a professional-grade camera for $2,000, but that doesn’t make you a professional photographer. The issue is that in music, unlike in photography, there seems to be less discernment. If an amateur photographer sent their work to magazines, they’d likely be rejected outright. But in music, especially when musicians are judging other musicians’ work, there’s often a lack of perspective on how the general public perceives the quality of the recording.
AR: As someone who reviews a lot of new releases, I probably get maybe 30 or 40 CDs per week across my desk. I do listen to everything, or at least I’ll open it and listen to the first 60 seconds or so of the first track. That’s usually enough time to make a decision on whether I’ll do a review or do something with the release. It’s not just about the music; the sound quality is equally important. You’d be surprised how many poor mixes I hear.
DD: I know most of the mixes are… and I don’t mean to sound arrogant but there are clear rules for what makes a good mix. If you look at the American jazz scene, whether you prefer the Jim Anderson sound or the Al Schmitt sound, it might be a matter of taste, but both are incredible mixers. They achieve depth, spectral balance of all the instruments, and physical integrity of the instruments. These are key elements of a good mix.
In the United States, established artists would usually not accept a poor mix. Often, they have producers who ensure quality by saying, “Hey, you have a great recording, we’re going to a good mixer.” But in Europe, we don’t usually have this system, except perhaps with labels like ECM. In Europe, even with a good label deal, the musician is often in charge of everything, and that’s not ideal. Musicians are great at composition and leading their bands, but when it comes to translating that sound to speakers, it’s a totally different story than a live concert. They’re not always the best judge of how their music should be mixed and presented in a recording.
AR: Let’s tackle a subject that some of our readers might find interesting. Imagine a musician has a situation where they’re going to record a new album and you’ve been asked to record it. Where will you record it? Will you go to a theater and record it, or would you rent a studio and record it there? What are your thoughts on this, to sort of number one, get the sound that you’re looking for?
DD: I think this is a very important question that many musicians don’t even ask. My approach is to start with the concept, not the budget. The first step is to speak with the band, producer, or band leader to develop a concept together. We need to determine what the music should sound like on loudspeakers. Should it be close to how the band sounds on stage? Should it be something different, like more intimate or old school?
The choice of recording space depends on this concept. If you want an old school sound or nice room acoustics, you can’t go to a modern studio with four separated rooms. But if you want close recordings with artistry done later in the mix, that kind of studio could work. Sometimes, you might want a minimalist approach, like a trio recording with just one mic per instrument, but then you need a specific kind of recording space and technology for that.
In Switzerland, we face challenges with finding suitable large rooms for jazz recordings. Many great radio studios have been repurposed or closed. We once had access to world-class recording rooms comparable to Abbey Road, but they’ve been given to music schools. We tried to petition for these spaces to remain available for professional recordings, but it’s been difficult.
The important thing is that the concept comes before the budget. When I was approached to record Yumi Ito’s next album, the manager initially asked about pricing for three days of studio time. I suggested we first meet with Yumi to discuss the concept, recording location, and overall vision. Only after establishing these creative aspects can we determine an appropriate budget and seek funding if necessary.
It’s a problem that many great sounding recording rooms are disappearing. But regardless of the challenges, the concept should always come first, and we need to carefully consider where and how we record. That, I believe, is critical to a great production.
AR: Well, yesterday, we finished up talking about creating a good environment for a band to be able to perform well in. Is there something more to say on this topic that we didn’t have time for?
DD: Absolutely. One crucial aspect is whether the band should play together or not, which entirely depends on the project. But what’s even more important is the overall atmosphere. As a sound engineer, I try to ensure that there’s a constructive and pleasant atmosphere between the musicians, and also between the musicians and staff. This is something that young sound engineers often don’t grasp at first.
AR: Can you elaborate on why this atmosphere is so important?
DD: Sure. For musicians, entering a studio can be an extremely challenging process. They’re aware that time is limited, especially in jazz where budgets are often tight. They might have only one day, or if they’re lucky, two or three days. They’re entering an artificial environment that’s quite different from the stage they’re used to. They might have to deal with unfamiliar equipment, technical problems, or practices they’re not comfortable with. All of this can create stress.
My goal is to create an extremely relaxing atmosphere so they can focus on their art. If they’re not happy with something, I try to solve the problem quickly to show that I respect their concerns. It’s crucial to avoid getting into negative arguments, even if what they’re saying might not be entirely correct.
We’re all human, and sometimes misunderstandings happen. Maybe they missed some information on the website, or they’re disappointed about something. In these cases, it’s important to quickly ensure that the atmosphere becomes positive again.
It could be making a joke at the right moment, saying something supportive, or even not saying anything at all. Sometimes, the best approach is to listen to their concerns, then solve the problem later when you can. Or maybe you create an extra great rough mix for them to boost their confidence.
The most important thing is to get them into the best possible mindset so that art can happen. They need to feel totally comfortable. It’s about creating an environment where they can perform at their best and feel respected throughout the process.
AR: I completely agree with your approach, especially when it comes to recording jazz. Given the improvisational nature of jazz, creating a comfortable and positive atmosphere is crucial for capturing the best possible performance on the spot.
DD: Exactly, even more important is a a great rough mix, because that’s what the musicians are hearing, whether they’re using headphones or not. Even when they come to the control room, the quality of the mix is crucial. For example, if the drummer doesn’t hear nice cymbals, he might lose confidence, thinking, “I’m making such nice sounds, but it sounds harsh in the control room.”
This is even more critical when they’re playing with headphones. The rough mix must be exceptional. If it’s not, the musicians can’t perform at their best. A subpar mix can significantly impact their performance and overall mood during the recording session.
AR: Good that you mentioned that, it’s one point that I wanted to get your opinion on – monitoring on headphones. Personally, I’m not a huge fan. I think a player will play differently to a headphone mix, and I don’t think that helps, especially if you’re going for an ensemble sound. What are your thoughts on the matter?
DD: It’s indeed a huge problem. When you give a drummer a mixing desk, they typically make the bass super loud, often using only the DI box signal of the bass. This is crucial for other engineers to understand.
For personal headphone systems, I always provide both the DI box and mic signals for the bass as separate tracks. If the drummer needs the bass loud, you have to accept it, even if it’s not realistic. They can’t make the bass mic too loud due to drum crosstalk, so they rely on the DI box signal, which sounds different from what’s actually being played.
This approach can work for some music styles, like my Chopin project with Jean-Paul Brodbeck and Kurt Rosenwinkel, where we were aiming for a constructed sound in the mix. However, for a natural, ensemble sound, it’s problematic. In such cases, I encourage musicians to play without headphones altogether.
I had an interesting experience with the Pablo Held Trio. The drummer, Jonas Burgwinkel, adapted by playing very softly. During a recording session at Jazz Campus Basel, a student asked Jonas if he liked playing so softly. Jonas admitted he hated it and would prefer to be in another room playing loudly with headphones. But he understood that Pablo wanted to create an ensemble sound, so he adapted as a professional.
Ultimately, you have to accept what the musician wants. Nowadays, we provide personalized mixers for headphones, as musicians wouldn’t accept a mix from the control room. It’s not ideal to send the control room mix because they’re listening at different levels. Some drummers use open headphones without amplifying the drums, which I can’t adjust for them without losing too much time.
AR: So it sounds like you prefer recording without headphones when possible?
DD: Yes, especially for ensemble sounds. But it really depends on the project and the musicians’ preferences. The key is to be flexible and find what works best for each specific situation.
This concludes this first part of our extensive interview with Daniel Dettwiler, in the second part of this interview we will look at topics such as capturing Harmonics, take a look at Daniels new studio and a lot more, so stay tuned and keep an eye out for the part two in the next week or two. In the mean time you can find out more or contact Daniel directly via his website here.
Last modified: July 22, 2024
