I think this sounds amazing but there are things I ( and 100,000 other engineers) would mix differently. :)

• the acoustic guitar sounds direct, I don't like that sound.
• the acoustic piano is okay but sounds a bit forward and slightly disconnected from the mix (a room mic would be nice),
• a stereo room mic like a Royer SF-24 or 24v-vacuum-tube-stereo-ribbon, that is, if the room is good. I love the sound of room mics blended to taste. They add a beautiful rich open sound to acoustic recordings. If I can't get a good room sound, I would use a Bricasti's and glue this a bit more open sounding (reference to that below). The Bricasti M7 and this type of music fits the production together like a glove.
• the vocals sound excellent to me.
• the compression and mastering sounds beautiful as well

I doubt this was tracked in the environment seen in the video but I like the video a lot. I would love to see footage of this being tracked. Especially for the vocals.

I love threads like this. Good one Marco. We should do these a lot more.

audiokid, post: 400287, member: 1 wrote: listen to this Royer and the guys chops. Does it get any better. And with the Bricasti M7 I might add. Listen to how smooth it is right to the top. And the keys with the SF-24 and 2 MA300. I love it., And here I am selling my mic. Its killing me.

[GALLERY=media, 343]Arturo Sandoval plays Trumpet and Piano, Royer ribbons demonstration at Sweetwater #2 - YouTube by audiokid posted Mar 25, 2015 at 8:21 PM[/GALLERY]

Re: room mics to help the overall room sound glue slightly, just a touch closer to this demonstration by means of incorporating Bricasti and a Royer SF Stereo.

Eds sound is always great and his fans don't need him to sound like the 80's lol. But I would still prefer to always make acoustic music sound more like it is less pieced together.

audiokid, post: 447585, member: 1 wrote: I doubt this was tracked in the environment seen in the video but I like the video a lot. I would love to see footage of this being tracked. Especially for the vocals.

I guess we will see more and more behind the scene videos in the future. I'm sure it will become a recipe to keep the interest of the fans with all the social medias.

As recordists, If we had more videos exposing tracking sound compared to mixed and mastered, it would help many to hear how it should sound at each steps.
I'm a fan of Ed and Jonh Mayer these days but I just discover Lake Street Dive (OMG her voice is so special)

Very nice! Yeah, shes smooth. This song sounds very connected and I like the piano better to Ed's above. I hear the room in her voice but I like it.
So anyone who thinks we can't produce something in a home, I'm pretty sure this song was tracked a modest studio run by someone that knows what they are doing.

Nice one!

What are your thoughts, Marco?

I like John Mayer as well. (y)

pcrecord, post: 447600, member: 46460 wrote: As recordists, If we had more videos exposing tracking sound compared to mixed and mastered, it would help many to hear how it should sound at each steps.

Indeed.
I created the Media section specifically for this kind of discussion. I haven't really promoted here as yet because its had a few bugs and seems to duplicate the forum. The new version of RO may improve on that.

audiokid, post: 447601, member: 1 wrote: Very nice! Yeah, shes smooth. This song sounds very connected and I like the piano better to Ed's above. I hear the room in her voice but I like it.
So anyone who thinks we can't produce something in a home, I'm pretty sure this song was tracked a modest studio run by someone that knows what they are doing.

Nice one!

What are your thoughts, Marco?

I'm not sure we hear the actual room through the same mic. I think, it's an added reverb or a room mic because I hear it coming from the right channel and the main vocal is right in the center.. Also the pre-delay is a bit long which is good for the song (I might be wrong tho , I'm on earbuds)..
About the studio, it seems to be big enough to have a full size piano that we see behind her (first images).
The youtube description says who but not where it's been recorded.
it says :
Here, Rachael Price of Lake Street Dive records lead vocals on her original song "What I'm Doing Here". This very special video captures her complete unedited take, accompanied by Lake Street Dive.

Unedited take !!! Wow, that is what music should be ! ;)

audiokid, post: 447602, member: 1 wrote: I created the Media section specifically for this kind of discussion.

Can't wait !

They probably went direct due to the piano and vocal bleed. And he's moving around alot..Not my favorite sound.. Piano sounds great..

Great performance..

i went to the u tube page and listened to several cuts. great vocal band. imo, not home studio recordings. good stuff!

pcrecord, post: 447612, member: 46460 wrote: I'm not sure we hear the actual room through the same mic. I think, it's an added reverb or a room mic because I hear it coming from the right channel and the main vocal is right in the center.. Also the pre-delay is a bit long which is good for the song (I might be wrong tho , I'm on earbuds)..

The 2:00 to 2:10 area is very evident on this effect in the Right Channel. I can also hear just a bit of this effect in the Left Channel but I cannot tell if it is just attenuated in the Left or if the tail is abbreviated in the Left - compared to the Right Channel.

I'm just going to take a guess at the piano tracking on Lake Street Dive. It sounds like an AB where the L mic is near the treble strings somewhat towards the dampers for a clear tone. While the R channel mic is back nearer the tail where the bass and treble strings cross...placed up high by the lid for a warmer tone. I also think they placed a 3rd mic (room mic) on the R channel only because the L channel sounds up close while the R channel sounds more distant. That room mic could be as close as just a few inches outside the lid.

I think I'll play around with that concept and see what I come up with. They've definitely mic'd this to leave a clear hole in the middle. I haven't folded to mono yet to see how solid that piano maintains itself. This type of spaced AB on piano is beautiful in stereo this way, but can be a challenge to keep solid in mono.

Great performances, but I really can't get on with the disconnect between the vocal acoustic and that of the rest of the band. If you are going to track the vocals separately (even as a single take as great as this one complete with all its reflective echo), it has to fit in with the already-recorded tracks from the band.

Boswell, post: 447777, member: 29034 wrote: Great performances, but I really can't get on with the disconnect between the vocal acoustic and that of the rest of the band. If you are going to track the vocals separately (even as a single take as great as this one complete with all its reflective echo), it has to fit in with the already-recorded tracks from the band.

Totally agree which is why (when dealing with pieced together music) I use a Bricasti m7 (or some room emulation) to help glue piece work to a common room. I like them on the 2 buss as the last step to final mix, master, mixdown, mp3 etc. That is, when it needs this.

Boswell, post: 447777, member: 29034 wrote: Great performances, but I really can't get on with the disconnect between the vocal acoustic and that of the rest of the band. If you are going to track the vocals separately (even as a single take as great as this one complete with all its reflective echo), it has to fit in with the already-recorded tracks from the band.

ironically, (for giggles and to mess us up a bit :confused:)

The sound of disconnected production may well be a sound my children's generation prefers. In other words... what our generation thinks as sounding truthful and noble isn't necessarily what the new generation wants to hear. I have noticed a few things I point to on the radio as what real sounds like to me, is deemed the sound of a dated time to my kids.
I suspect this is a classic example of how we acquire a taste through conditioning. Today's music is conditioning people to the sound of pieced together DAW production.

audiokid, post: 447779, member: 1 wrote: Today's music is conditioning people to the sound of pieced together DAW production.

...As well as accepting lower fidelity as the "norm".

The number of people who listen to file-compressed/down-sampled music through earbuds is already obvious, (all you need to do is jump on any commuter train on any day at any time, you'll see a plethora of ear buds, "Beats" headphones, etc. ); followed closely by the other popular listening preference - which is listening to music through their phone speakers, with all the glorious fidelity one could expect from a tiny 3.2mm (or whatever sized) 2000mW speaker.

I won't lie... There have been some days where I've wondered just why it is that we take the time that we do on our productions; why we pay attention to the details and nuances in recording and mixing ( both subtle and not-so-subtle) that will likely never be heard by the majority of those listening. Most of us have just been conditioned to be that way as cookers; we do our best to make everything sound as good as possible, whether the majority of people will ever notice those things or not. It's how we were trained - either self taught or more formally - to turn out the best sounding audio that we can.

But, it's been frustrating ( at least to me) over the last 10 years or so... to picture the majority of listeners hearing these songs under such lo-fi circumstances.

What's even more disappointing (to me) is the number of people who don't care about hearing music as it was meant to be heard; choosing convenience over fidelity almost every time.
I'm sure there are exceptions; those people who do care and who do want to hear music in the highest resolution possible... But I'm pretty sure that those people are in the minority.

IMHO of course.

DonnyThompson, post: 447805, member: 46114 wrote: There have been some days where I've wondered just why it is that we take the time that we do on our productions; why we pay attention to the details and nuances in recording and mixing ( both subtle and not-so-subtle) that will likely never be heard by the majority of those listening.

I just think that a bad recording/mix/master will equaly sound bad on a LoFi systems and a HiFi systems. If the snare is masking the vocal on my monitors, I doubt it will sound better on an iPhone with ear-buds.

For sure, we must adapt ! Those bass tracks without content above 100hz won't be heard on laptop speakers.
So we need to track and mix to make our music work within the boundaries of cheaper listening devices. Kinda more work to do actually !
Time to buy those 3$ computer speakers from aliexpress and compare our mix on them?? (been a long time since I've done that, but I should)

But I'm a dreamer ! I believe that some people are still interested in good quality recordings.

Get this, the only time I heard good sounding music when I was a kid is when I had access to my dad in law living room sound system. It wasn't that often. (in the 70's)
I played outside a lot like kid my age did and didn't get much music into then.

Today, I'm not sure less people have access to good sound. Good sounding systems are still being sold.
It's just that more people listen to music and they do on a wider variety of quality medium and listening devices.
Got my Walkman in the 80's.. I won't say it sounded better than any other systems available! It in fact didn't sound good at all. But It was just more convenient to bring my music with me. . . Same deal today!

If I was to cry over something, it wouldn't be how people listen to music but rather how people are not paying for music anymore. (but that's another thread)

DonnyThompson, post: 447805, member: 46114 wrote: I won't lie... There have been some days where I've wondered just why it is that we take the time that we do on our productions; why we pay attention to the details and nuances in recording and mixing ( both subtle and not-so-subtle) that will likely never be heard by the majority of those listening. Most of us have just been conditioned to be that way as cookers; we do our best to make everything sound as good as possible, whether the majority of people will ever notice those things or not. It's how we were trained - either self taught or more formally - to turn out the best sounding audio that we can.

You aren't alone.
I've always invested in quality instruments and equipment for both live and studio work because I like my performances and recording to sound the best they can. Its also an obsession driven by strong beliefs that, in order to earn a living at anything, you need good tools and the ability to get things done in a timely manner.
Better sound inspires my creative side which is my greatest asset so its a win win coming at this from a professional perspective.
That being said, I also can't stand it when something sounds wrong because I don't want bad sound to be a reason of failure. I'm a firm believer talent alone will not be the sole reason we win or fail in this industry.
And finally, which may be the most important part to my madness... I also find better sounding captures make it easier "for me" to learn and mix my work which free up more time which means "time is money and time is family, friends and fun".

DonnyThompson, post: 447805, member: 46114 wrote: What's even more disappointing (to me) is the number of people who don't care about hearing music as it was meant to be heard; choosing convenience over fidelity almost every time.
I'm sure there are exceptions; those people who do care and who do want to hear music in the highest resolution possible... But I'm pretty sure that those people are in the minority.

I think the bad sound and compression is driven by the ability (including economics) to move data faster. I think people would always migrate to better sound if it was available.
Something I've just recently taken notice of, when listening to Sirius music the best sounding music isn't from the past, everything current sounds much better.
I'm thinking... do they process all the content the same through a similar compression system? If so, why does the Sirius Hit station sound much better to all the older recording? Its not subtle.
Even though today's creativity is not my thing... the bigger and punchier sound sure is.

But back to your response, Donny... I think we don't need all the stuff that we once used. Digital audio is awesome.
Converters are the new Tape Deck. We can't make 1/4in 16 track sound like 2inch tape. Good conversion = 2 inch tape which effects how compression ends up as well.

pcrecord, post: 447807, member: 46460 wrote: I just think that a bad recording/mix/master will equally sound bad on a LoFi systems and a HiFi systems. If the snare is masking the vocal on my monitors, I doubt it will sound better on an iPhone with ear-buds.

without a doubt. Its all relative.

Something of interest. I actually "include" a good TV to check particular aspects of sound. TV's have tiny speakers that are very sensitive to dynamic problems including exposing phase issues. I've noticed there are subtle areas of a mix my professional monitors don't revile (at least to me) as easily.
I've also noticed small low-fi speakers can be useful for detailing mid range monitoring. Thus, why I just love Avatones and other small speakers.
When volumes are within the optimal specs of a speaker, excellent mixes do sound smooth on many small speakers, which was why I started wondering why my mixes didn't.