Ryan Maeker has been thriving as a freelance sound designer in New York City going on five years now, and this past year has been an eventful one. The young designer was nominated for two New York Innovative Theatre Awards for sound design in 2007, of which one of the shows -- a co-design with long-time downtown designer Tim Schellenbaum -- walked away with the award. The New Yorker by way of New Mexico was also the designer for the "A" run of the Ensemble Studio Theatre's 2007 One-Act Play Marathon. The Young master Maeker somehow finds time to freelance, work as a company member with Witness Relocation, do sound editing work for film and even answer a few questions from the inquisitive and appreciative Gearwire crew.

Gearwire: How is it different working in theatre and film?

Ryan Maeker: Oh Man. Well, first of all, the major difference is actually not in the conception or structuring of the work but rather in the final execution of the work. Because theater is ever changing and ever living, no two nights are exactly the same, and the design has to have room for that. The design must have breathing room so to speak. In a film, you have a certain amount of time to sit in front of a computer and obsess over the accuracy, detail and every other little aspect of the work. This accuracy will then always be there. Every time the film is played in a DVD player or on a big screen, I can sit at home and know that everything is okay. I have had nightmare shows where stage managers didn't execute a single show right [during] the six week run. As far as the process is concerned, I take the same basic approach. I look at what is there. I try to figure out what story is being told to me and then I try to find a way to tell another aspect of that story or add my experience to that story. Of course each project being different, with the great many individuals involved, this can change.

GW: Do you prefer one medium over the other?

RM: Sometimes I like film more because once I hit the save button, I know (at least I hope) that the next time I look at the project, it will be just as I left it. However sometimes if I get a really great committed group of collaborators together in a [theatre] production team, those experiences are priceless.

GW: How do think your having a foot in both theatre and film informs your work in the other's context?

RM: I used to use the phrase a lot in design (theater) meetings "this moment is very cinematic" only after I began working in film did I understand what that actually meant. Funny though, in spotting meetings now for films I have caught myself using the phrase "this scene is very theatrical" I don't know what it all means.

GW: How did you first become interested in sound design?

RM: Well, I was always involved in theater and choir. I actually used to be in charge of setting up the equipment for our choir. I originally went to school for acting then changed my mind to go into directing. Meanwhile, I was recording my own music at home. While I was in the directing program at NYU I found that I was much better at telling a powerful story using sound. I remember a long time ago when Jurassic Park came out, I memorized the entire score. Another story, my mom used to have a video camera. I actually -- when I was like eight -- set up the camera and played a song on a CD player that was actually plugged directly into the camera and filmed a music video with audio sync! I know. I used to be popular in school too.

GW: Speaking of popularity, how do you market yourself as a sound designer in NYC? Is it a mostly word-of-mouth process?

RM: Simply that. I go into each show with an open process and try to mold myself to those around me. I make sure to deliver what I say that I can and try not to burn any bridges. Occasionally I do, but what can you do about that? Not everyone is meant to work together. The people who I get along with end up hiring me again and recommending me.

GW: Tell us a bit about your experience designing the recent EST One-act festival. Was it anarchy? How did you keep all those directors in line?

RM: Let's just say there may be a few fewer directors in my little black book than before. The theater itself was and still is going through somewhat of a renaissance. After the death of their previous Artistic Director, the theatre was left in the excellent hands of Billy Carden. And I think it is working to redefine itself. That being said, it was pure chaos. I think that a lot of it had to do with just the pure explosiveness of a dozen well known directors and one sound designer. But the show went on. And on. And on.

GW: How did you get involved with Witness Relocation?

RM: I was designing a show for a dude in my studio [at NYU] and Dan (Artistic Director of WR) was the project's mentor. I really dug the way he talked about the work and about sound and it's role in directing, so I requested him to mentor my directing work. Well, the show was okay but I was totally immersed (as I still am) with the way he approaches the work, so we got to talking and he took me on as an assistant director and associate sound designer and we have been working on stuff ever since.

GW: Would you consider them your "home?"

RM: If you consider home a family of incestuous, dirty, verbally abusive, politically incorrect, foul-mouthed, egomaniacal, incredibly passionate and talented people -- then yes, yes I do.

GW: How do work differently with W.R. than on other gigs?

RM: If I told you, I would have to kill you.

[. . . nervous silence, sweat beads, collars tugged. . .]

Each show is different. For example I worked with Dan on a show out in Copenhagen, Denmark. That show had a script. Most of the work that WR does is scripted through the work of the company and filtered through Dan. This show in Copenhagen was totally different. We still did things in our own "WR way" but we also had to deal with the added element of actors who don't work in our own "WR way." Other shows have many different work styles. For instance I am working on a musical that has a very formal production flow, which really becomes a game of numbers and politics.

GW: How do mean, "numbers and politics?"

RM: Simply put, this is when the lack of money requires that the designer must politically negotiate other elements of the design or direction in order to satisfy budgetary consideration. Normally this is called collaboration, but when working in such a formal environment such as this was, it becomes political in nature. Conversely, I am working on two other shows; one of which has a very collaborative communal feel to it, which I dig, and the other that is a much larger show and [has] many question marks or unknowns. For instance, there are people working on the show that I know and have worked with and can anticipate their style or mode of working, and others who I do not know. The question marks aren't necessarily bad, but they represent the difference between being collaborative and being asked to just do what is asked.

GW: Where are my manners? Congratulations on your NYIT award for your co-design with Tim Schellenbaum! How was it working with Tim as a co-designer?

RM: Tim is amazing, no questions asked. Tim can make an awful sound like nobody can. I think he hides sound magic in his beard. Tim has one of the best technical implementation minds I have run across. He can see a room and tell you immediately where to hang the speakers and place the mics to achieve the desired effect. He has that guru-roadie thing happening. I enjoy being able to focus on the creation of the design and the music and the sounds, and having someone else create a system to make it loud. Of course doing it all has it's perks too. . .

GW: Do you get to do a lot of system spec? When you do, do you have some go-to gear you rely on?

RM: The only go-to gear that I rely on is the gear that fits within budget. But I will give you a few lines of thoughts I have about gear and why. First of all there is nothing more versatile than a PCC Boundary Mic. You can throw one of those just about anywhere and give an actor a voice lift. Also, and this is pretty standard across the board, it must be loud. To achieve this I generally go for a huge subwoofer under the audience and at least 2 PA speakers, passive. I like unpowered because the amp selection really turns me on. I like to have a center channel for any voice over or any cue that I need to pull out of the audio-scape. I also like depth so if the space and budget allow, I try to throw a couple of channels in the back of the stage for pulling sounds from the stage to the house as well as generating some really cool perspective focus. As far as specific brands, there are brands that I like just because I have worked with them repeatedly, either by choice or by sheer availability; working in NYC off and off-off Broadway theater, often times, I have to use what is available to me, ut I have had a good run with JBL's SRX subwoofers. They have a nice response. Also, I like Mackie overheads; I think they have the sweetest spray so as not to nail the center seat against the wall. They are not as directional as some of the JBL overheads that I have worked with. As far as power amps are concerned, I love Crown. I think they are quiet, well designed, and they don't heat up as much as some of the other amps that I have run. If I had a large budget, I would buy a pair of Crown XLS 500s.

GW: As a designer, do you mostly work as an editor of extant audio material, or do you do a lot of engineering, foley and/or compositional work?

RM: I am known as the surgeon of extant audio material. I can rip that [poop!] apart and make horrible sounds from it. I also take great pride in my ability to compose music, though mostly I work with composers who I keep in my back pocket. They provide most of my non-copyrighted musical work. As for foley, there are a million and one ways to make the sound of a body getting hit by a car… most of that occurs in my living room.

GW: What program do you use for audio editing and why?

RM: I use a few. I rely on SoundTrack Pro from Apple because of the familiarity and the ease of use. I also use Logic Studio for putting music together. But my workhorse for point-to-point assembly is Pro Tools. I run a Euphonix Console to run my mixes; the Apple compatibility and the HUI control are nice to have when I want to run from one application to another.

>GW: I'm assuming you're not using a $50,000 Series Five Euphonix console. . .

RM: I have the Euphonix MC. This is, in my opinion, the most advanced digital audio control surface on the market. Aside from the customizable transport controls, the ability to switch tracks between applications in real time is important to me. I keep the series 5 in my other room.

GW: Any desire to direct again?

RM: I will be directing a series of one act's this fall. I'll keep you posted!