Production Values Today...Compared to Yesterday

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:37 pm

mark_van_j wrote:

AwedOne wrote:

Blame first the artists, then the businessmen who new a good thing when they saw it.

...I'm not saying it's one person's fault this all started. It started because louder was cooler and had a better ROI (return on investment). What I'm saying is, it's the "suits" fault for pushing it TODAY, and the artists who always know better than the person doing their job.

The fact is, this is a society thing at the moment, where it seems people have given up on quality in exchange for convenience.....

I think it's a lot more complicated that that. After all, the point of this whole thread is to discuss the fact that someone perceived what you and I think is quality as a lack of quality. People don't think they are giving up quality when they buy heavily limited music. They think the limited music is better. And it's not just the consumers. Pick a dozen posts in the mastering forum at random and you'll hear about more about plenty of artists who want to set the limiter on "crush." If the artists and the consumers are in agreement, why would the suits disagree?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:55 pm

But I think we're talking specifically about the Abbey Road Album. This one it quite different than anything that came before, especially where drums are concerned.
So If Cloud is listening to the earlier stuff, I'm still with him on that. The drums were usually quite burried and the bass suffers etc.
But even other albums released around the same time or after Abbey Road didn't have 'that sound'.
It's probably not until a year or two later that we get Zeppelin and [gasp] Disco where we start getting more up front drums.
And it's probably not until we get to 2" tape that we start to see the next big improvement in clarity.
And to be fair, Clouds original post was specifically about the Abbey Road Kick drum, so lets all turn the album over and listen to the drum solo one more time.
I still say the kik is just about as good there as anything since. (I also think the floor tom has some special magical 3D quality to it.) I can't really hear the floor tom on Clouds ref music.
But as someone pointed out, it's two different animals. (or fruit) Even in Clouds music clips, the quality of the music is different for each one. In which case the 'As I Lay Dying' example has (IMO) a better drum sound than the others.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:49 pm

Davedog wrote:

I have no idea which Beatles you were listening to and its not important. BUT your reactions to it leave me with the feeling that you arent speaking any kind of language about what you're hearing that co-incides with what I and most of the others on here know. Pauls bass is flat? As in hes using flatwound strings and it doesnt sound like a piano on steroids flat? Or its literally outoftuneflat?

Maybe its the space between the notes that you dont understand. Thats the reality of dynamics. Music isnt all about slamming a pick into a guitar string as fast as possible with a pink-noise generator set on kill engaged to it. I'm not saying that this ISNT music, but what it doesnt have is soul or movement or inspiration.

When you listen to something that doesnt automatically make you stare at the ground while slinging your hair back and forth in a zombiesque dance, do you understand the relationship of the notes working with and against themselves ? Do you not see how the downward movement of a bass line opens up the top end of the other instruments perking right along with the vocal line? Counter movement and counter melody uniting to form something that an individual part cannot possibly state alone.....

In contrast we have the typical metal passage. A riff played by a single instrument against a furious assault of the same note or simple two-tone chordal structure played by everything else. Simple....yes...effective...yes...earth-shattering....uh, no.....And really, at those speeds its about all you can do in order to have semblance of something other than mud.... Okay. That works for me. But only for a while. Then it gets boring like every country-life song on the radio. Played by the same band BTW.

Same-o same-o and its the business that tells us that this is what we must do in order to succeed. To get airtime. To have backing for sales. To have a promotional package.

And heres this glut of metalheads who pride themselves on being outside the law being sucked into the machine like a helium balloon in a fan factory.

You want reality? Take what you know. Learn MORE stuff to add to it. Your record doesnt have to sound like all those putzes out there . Ya wanna be different? Do it. But learn something about melody and timing and dynamics.

My guess is, most of your favorite bigtime bands know a shitload about this stuff....More than you think.

As for the bass, I guess I mean that it's not very bright. Like... it's just kinda dull, to me.

Anyway, about the rest, you are right. I don't know what I'm talking about. I wish I did. Any cool music I ever write is by accident, I have never been able to write something "on purpose" persay. I stumble upon something I like while jamming and then I build upon it.

Davedog wrote:

My guess is, most of your favorite bigtime bands know a shitload about this stuff....More than you think.

I bet you are right. Where do I go to learn about it?

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:14 pm

I think it all boils down to the fact that at one point in time effects were meant to be tools in the recording process. Recording was supposed to capture the music as if the band were in your living room playing.

More and more, effects have become an intrinsic part of the recording process. Recorded music has lost all sense of naturalness. Guitars sound so unlike guitars. Drums are totally unnatural sounding. They don't ring. Their sound doesn't resonate at all. People have grown accustomed to over processed instruments.

It's sad because I listen to some of my cd's from one artist and you can hear how the recording process has changed from one cd to the next. Specifically: I'm a huge Di Meola, Di Lucia, McLaughlin fan. Passion Grace and Fire sounds incredible. Lots of space and huge dynamics. You have to crank it to appreciate all the nuances. Then the reforming of the trio in the late nineties came and I have to turn it down because my ears don't get a rest. It's just full boar in your face. It's painful to listen to. the music is great, but I can't stand to listen to more than one song at a time.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:33 pm

Hello. I feel that the answer to your question, and I think most of the people here would agree with me, is that the old style of recording / production was made to sound as close as possible to the band actually being in the room with you. This is called "real sound". The drummers kick coming out of your speakers would sound like the drummers kick was right in front of you in the room.

Todays production is more based on enhancement. Stereo widening, multiband compression, and other things are used to make mixes sound enhanced on all systems (even cheap ones).

It may even interest you to know that the actual speakers are made differently now. Before, they were designed to sound good in the average listeners home... now they are deigned with enhancements to make them sound better in a retail environment. This is obviously done to get the sale, but where does that leave the consumer when he / she gets them home?

I like modern production too, I just do not like it for every single record that comes out. It makes every band sound the same to me. Every snare sounds the same, every distorted guitar track. They all seem to be going for this same opinion of "perfection" that just leaves no room for new and groundbreaking sounds. Even the indie stuff is doing this now, which is a major disappointment to me. I very much enjoyed the work of Belle & Sebastian and part of that was the dynamic of the recording. Since "Dear Catastrophe Waitress", they've had big budget production and in my opinion, it just doesn't work as well for such a dynamic band who use a lot of crescendo's and dynamic playing in general.

I do agree with you on the subject of metal though. I think for most metal bands out now, to sound natural would take away that illusion that every instrument is blasting loud. But that doesn't mean I don't like the production on Maiden's first 2 records, it's just a different era now.

Yes, producers are making the tracks louder and louder so their song will stand out from the others when it gets airplay.

Also, the older stuff was mastered for vinyl which is a more dynamic and expressive format. The stuff now is mastered for CD.

Sorry about the rant, but if you would really like to understand what is so special about that older type of production, get a natural sounding cd (Ben Kweller's 'On My Way' is a great example of a new artist with a natural sound), and sit in the sweet spot with your eyes closed and imagine the band is playing in the room you're in.

Anyone else with me on this? Smile

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:59 pm

BrianaW wrote:

...
Also, the older stuff was mastered for vinyl which is a more dynamic and expressive format. The stuff now is mastered for CD. ...

sorry
had to pick up on that
not quite right

16 bit 44.1 should have more dynamic range than vinyl
and should have more freq response than vinyl too

It is true to say that material is mastered for the medium AND for the method that it will be played/SOLD via

MP3 on a set of earbuds is vastly different to A BIG$$$ hifi system with outrageous headroom

People still chase hi class recordings that retain dynamic range in the Classical and Jazz and Jazz/fusion world
... this is vastly different to the mainstream pop world.

We can also be influenced by our era.
I tend to like the late 60's 70's feel
Jethro Tull , Thin Lizzy and early ACDC.

and I do appreciate the modern SMASH when done well
my MP3 player and car stereo has GreenDay perminantly locked into it

I am still amazed at the Beatles and Tull for their recordings on 4 and 8 track .....
not a plug-in or cut and paste in sight
Rolling Eyes

now what does bounce mean

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:03 pm

BrianaW wrote:

It may even interest you to know that the actual speakers are made differently now. Before, they were designed to sound good in the average listeners home... now they are deigned with enhancements to make them sound better in a retail environment. This is obviously done to get the sale, but where does that leave the consumer when he / she gets them home?

While I'm with you on the rest of your post, I have to take exception on a broad scale with this statement.

There certainly are speaker manufacturers that do hype certain frequencies (80-120 Hz and 400-800 Hz) to excite the listener, most speaker designers currently are actually in the pursuit of the finest speaker that they can make for the money.

Obvious exceptions would be mini-shelf-systems (which have obviously lost their popularity over the past few years) and the new craze of iPod docking systems and then of course Bose (but they've been in the business of conning customers for decades...)

Most "big-box" stores (such as Best Buy and Circuit City) carry a wide variety of speakers ranging from yard-sale quality crap to extreme high end (I've seen KEF at Circuit City - albeit their entry-level stuff and Vienna Acoustics and Martin and Logan at Best Buy - although, they actually refuse to mass load their Vienna Acoustics speakers which automatically causes detriment to the quality of the sound...) Sure, the yard sale quality junk sucks, and may be engineered to a lower standard, but I certainly don't think that the market in general has gone towards a standard of lower fidelity for the sake of better sales margins. In the end, they know all to well that this would hurt them better than serve them in the long run.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:13 pm

Yeah, you guys are totally right. Sorry, I should have chosen my words more carefully. I did not intend to impose such a broad stereotype or generalization. Smile

Vinyl records on a capable playback system do sound more alive to me than CD's though. CD wise, I have a decent trasport with dual 24 bit Burr Brown converters, and it's HDCD compatible (anyone figured out how to burn one of these yet?). That's just my opinion of course, and the high end distortion inherent in some vinyl is rather unpleasant in most cases to me. I'm definitely not disagreeing with you though, obviously you're totally right about the dynamic range.

Also, I think The Strokes are a perfect example of why the "cookie cutter" production standards are not always a good thing. I think part of the reason they became so popular (aside from great songwriting) was the unusual production. I mean, who can't tell that it's The Strokes when it comes on? Smile

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:16 pm

hueseph wrote:

Quote:

More and more, effects have become an intrinsic part of the recording process. Recorded music has lost all sense of naturalness. Guitars sound so unlike guitars. Drums are totally unnatural sounding. They don't ring. Their sound doesn't resonate at all. People have grown accustomed to over processed instruments.

I would hazard a guess that the guitarists and drummers from the 30's and 40's said the same thing in 1965.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:32 pm

AwedOne wrote:

hueseph wrote:

Quote:

Recorded music has lost all sense of naturalness. Guitars sound so unlike guitars........

I would hazard a guess that the guitarists and drummers from the 30's and 40's said the same thing in 1965.

I'm sure they did and I don't think they were wrong. Mind you I have never liked the "wall of sound" that was so popular. And, yes Marshall amps made guitars sound totally unlike anything previous to that time but these things didn't affect the performance aspect of the recording. The artist was still capable of reproducing their studio performance in a live setting.

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:02 pm

AwedOne wrote:

hueseph wrote:

Quote:

More and more, effects have become an intrinsic part of the recording process. Recorded music has lost all sense of naturalness. Guitars sound so unlike guitars. Drums are totally unnatural sounding. They don't ring. Their sound doesn't resonate at all. People have grown accustomed to over processed instruments.

I would hazard a guess that the guitarists and drummers from the 30's and 40's said the same thing in 1965.

You are probably right about guitarists - they probably had a hard time getting over Leo's brainchild, but there are at least a few important examples of drummers (and for importance, you don't really need to go beyond Buddy Rich) who are on record as wishing the recording techniques of the 60s and 70s were available in the 30s and 40s. A lot of people from the 30s and 40s complained about the music that was being played in the 60s, but can you find many people who thought the recording technology made things worse? (The only thing I can think of that's remotely like that is some of the new bluegrass groups who are going back to having the whole group move around a single mic.)

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:47 am

BrianaW wrote:

...and I think most of the people here would agree with me, is that the old style of recording / production was made to sound as close as possible to the band actually being in the room with you.

I don't think that the old style of recording was just one thing. I think that in general it was capture a bands performance but not necessarily to sound like you were in the room with the band. Motown records don't have that type of sound and they are from the same period the as the early Beatles records.

It's been mentioned before and I agree that sound of older recordings is the product of the best use of the equipment at hand plus personal taste. I mean if you've got 2 tracks, you do what you can with them. If you've got four, you might think...I'd really like to put the vocals on their own track so that I have more control. Then if you got 8, 16 or 24 tracks you can split each instrument out to it's own track and have ultimate control.
I think that it's what is/was done with that ultimate control (or lack thereof) that gives us the difference between older and newer productions.

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:57 am

Just some interesting reading on the topic

http://moozeek.de/mirrors/articles/over_the_limit.htm

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:26 pm

It seems the question is, do you want to sound like everyone else out there at the moment, or do you want to do something that sounds different, maybe even better? I guess it comes down to either riding the current paradigm, or just making something you think sounds good. If you like over compressed, brick wall limited drums, then do it that way. Just remember that what you think sounds "modern" will sound "dated" in a few years. If the whole thing sounds good and the song is good, no one will bitch about dated production methods 20 years later. Andy

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:12 pm

Wow. I just read that article and it motivated me to check out Vapor Trails. Wow... this does sound awful!! The music is so good too, what a waste. My home recordings sound better than this. Sad

This topic sponsored by: