Side note:
Also... the practice of studio engineers inserting limiting on the 2-bus of the console didn't come in until around the 70's, and it wasn't something that they left on when they printed the mixes to 2 track. They would insert a limiter of some kind on the master bus of the console to give the producer and the artist an idea of what it would sound like after it had been mastered... but it was originally only for temporary monitoring purposes, and wasn't printed to the 2 track master mixes.
The practice of printing limited mixes to 2 track came in later, but even then, it was used sparingly, just enough to add "glue"... and outside of a very small percentage of cases of over-limiting, it was done with a very light touch; still allowing the M.E. the head room they needed to work... sometimes barely even moving the needle on a pair of LA2's, and in some cases, not even moving the needle at all, but simply busing the signal through the limiter's electronics/tubes at unity gain, as a way to add a particular sonic texture without the actual compression.

-d.

90's for me. Last era where tape was used and was most refined, and the beginning of electronic sounds merging with live tracked sounds in a significant 'non candid' way. I think the less live tracks appearing on recordings, the less dynamics.

i'm with Kmetal, maybe for slightly different reasons.

I'm talking about great sound and nothing else; not whether it was Sinatra, or Cole, or Buddy Holly, or the Beatles behind the microphone. I'm not talking about whether it was great writing, or a great vocalist, or Bonzo on drums- just the SOUND. I'm not talking about how impressive a feat it was to get good sound out of just two or 4 tracks.

Sure there are exceptions, but generally, the 90's was then it all came together. The early 90s especially, which brought us Nevermind and Ten and such like recordings.

Why do I say this?
1-They had 24 tracks on 2" Studers, so they had enough room to put everything on its own track and deal with it individually. They didn't have to do everything on two or three or four tracks and "this is what you get unless we bounce."

2-They had left behind the big endless reverbs and phoney sounding over processed drums of the 80's. The paper thin kit and wimpy bottom end of the 70's was gone.

3-The engineers had the know how, from 30 or 40 years of recording. They got spectacular sounding drums and kicks that shook your walls if you had the right stereo. They got tons of great guitar sounds in that era.

4 -They didn't really have digital yet in a big way so the performer still had to play music to tape.

5-The squishing the life out of everything was still another decade away.

6- the gear was, as Kmetal says, "refined." And they had access to everything from modern sounds back to classic boards and gear, and could put it all to 2" tape.

i wasn't a recording engineer in those days, just a listener, and those were the days that really wowed me based purely on the sounds of the final record. It was especially obvious to me when I would throw on a recording from the 60's-80's: whether those era recordings were limited by the gear, or the knowledge base wasn't deep enough, or both, they just simply weren't there yet.

My two bits, worth exactly that.

took-the-red-pill, post: 436407, member: 21836 wrote: 'm talking about great sound and nothing else

You've missed my point. I didn't choose them because they were Sinatra, or Cole, or Holly. I chose them only as examples of recordings that still stand up to any modern sense of fidelity... they just happened to be recordings by those particular artists.

I guess our definitions of great fidelity differ... because with very few exceptions, such as Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Gin Blossoms, The Wallflowers, and a handful of others, I thought that the bulk of the 90's stuff sounded quite harsh, with the uber-squashing and volume wars that had become so popular.

Is it perhaps possible that you can't equate the difference between a song you don't like and the fidelity of it as a recording? I'm not trying to offend you, or be a jerk about it... It's not an uncommon thing, and not hard to fall into that trap. I say this because you mentioned loving "kicks that shook your walls" and 'tons of great guitar sounds"... and that hints at the possibility that you really only listen to that kind of music, and that you don't find value in any other music that doesn't have that stuff... I'm sure it's partly a generational thing... you don't dig music that doesn't have those characteristics, so it's difficult for you to find any value in recordings that don't have those things. It's completely natural, completely understandable.

But most pro engineers are trained to listen to all genre's of music. I can hear an excellent recording quality ( or an awful fidelity) in any form of music, whether it's rock, metal, country, blues, all kinds of jazz, chamber, orchestral... because that's what I was trained to do. As a pro engineer, you don't get to pick and choose the genre's of music that you want to record - unless you are very wealthy and have that luxury. Pro engineers need to be able to record anything, and to do so with the best quality possible... whether you happen to like that particular style or not. I've heard fantastic sounding metal mixes, and awful sounding classical recordings... I've heard great sounding country songs - even though I'm not a fan of country - and terrible mixes of rock songs that I loved. You have to be able to separate out your personal like/dislike for the music, to hear beyond that and listen to it as an engineer... focusing on the things that matter to engineers. I've done plenty of recordings and mixes that I'm proud of, where at the same time, I couldn't stand the song itself.

took-the-red-pill, post: 436407, member: 21836 wrote: They didn't really have digital yet in a big way so the performer still had to play music to tape.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you're very wrong. Digital was being used for commercial recordings as far back as the 70's. ( actually, digital recording goes back to 1957 for music recording). Ry Cooder's Bop Til You Drop was the first all-digital commercially released album ( on Warner Bros) and it was released in 1979. Digital was used all throughout the 80's for studio recording, ( Sony DASH 24 track Digital R to R tape) and by '92, it had become the de-facto tracking format in many, many pro studios. Several different formats followed - Alesis ADAT, Tascam DA, and then to computer/tape-less. By '95, digital started to become popular in mid-level facilities as well.

Yes, you are correct - Nirvana recorded to analog. You know why? Because they'd been given a budget of only 65k to produce the album ( a very small sum to produce a record), and their money would go the farthest at Sound City - because they were one of the last studios in the L.A. area that hadn't gone digital by then, and that hadn't also jacked their rates accordingly. Had it not been for Nirvana, Sound City probably would have closed. (Even SC's renowned and long time head engineer, Keith Olsen, had left by then, and had opened up his own digital room).
I'd wager that many of the act's albums you mentioned liking in the 90's were NOT tracked and mixed to tape, but were in fact recorded to either Radar, or Sony DASH, ( digital multi track tape) or to multi track ADAT or Tascam DA racks, or, to Session ( the early version of Pro Tools) or to Digidesign's Pro Tools. The 90's were a time when analog tape was fast disappearing, and at a very rapid and constant rate.

took-the-red-pill, post: 436407, member: 21836 wrote: They had left behind the big endless reverbs and phoney sounding over processed drums of the 80's. The paper thin kit and wimpy bottom end of the 70's was gone.

Man, I don't know what specific popular or T40 radio you were listening to, but Rap and Pop and Dance and House and Industrial were nothing BUT sequencers and drum machines and reverb and delay.

took-the-red-pill, post: 436407, member: 21836 wrote: the gear was, as Kmetal says, "refined." And they had access to everything from modern sounds back to classic boards and gear, and could put it all to 2" tape.

Again, not as much 2" tape ( or any sized tape) was being used in those days as you seem to think. It hadn't entirely disappeared from the scene, but it was fading very fast. And, 2" tape had been around LONG before the 90's, as had all the other gear you mentioned as being "refined" and "classic" - I'm assuming you are referring to Neumann's, AKG's, LA2's and 1176's, and Eventide and TC Electronics and Lexicon.... The 90's were a time when a multitude of studios actually began dumping their big consoles, tape machines and external /OB gear, and making the move to digital recording and digital processing (Plug ins aren't new. They've been around since the mid 90's).

Here's what I can tell you, just so you don't think I'm full of BS or making any of this up... ;)
After having worked with a pretty famous producer around '91, ( merely by chance and by luck) he began to refer me and to circulate my name around the studios he worked at as an engineer who was solid, stable, and who could be trusted to not leak out rough mixes, and counted on to show up early, leave late, stay friendly... and stay sober.
I'm not telling you any of that to brag. If I wanted to brag, I'd have name-dropped the producer... and that's not my intention...
I'm only telling you this to let you know that I was there working in the trenches during that time - doing sessions in many pro rooms all over the midwest, the east coast, the west coast, and up into Ontario, Canada., and what I saw happening first hand, and experienced ... and what I know to be true.

That's not to disparage the music that you like. There was plenty of 90's stuff I liked, too.

But you've mentioned some things that aren't entirely correct in your reasoning for why you liked it.

;)
-d.

Adam J. Brass, post: 436388, member: 49746 wrote: AEA 44C, JCF Audio AD-8, Single channel Innertube Audio Atomic Squeezebox

took-the-red-pill, post: 436407, member: 21836 wrote: I'm talking about great sound and nothing else; not whether it was Sinatra, or Cole, or Buddy Holly, or the Beatles behind the microphone. I'm not talking about whether it was great writing, or a great vocalist, or Bonzo on drums- just the SOUND. I'm not talking about how impressive a feat it was to get good sound out of just two or 4 tracks.

Sure there are exceptions, but generally, the 90's was then it all came together. The early 90s especially, which brought us Nevermind and Ten and such like recordings.

How do you think they acheived such a big sound on both those albums ?

Use of compression and limiting. While maybe not used to the excess of todays' standards, and also not to the extent used on subsequent reissues of both these albums, the sound acheived on both these albums was through compression used on the individual tracks and limiting on the master bus.

I own both these albums on CD, bought back when they were first released. They were big and loud and in-your-face for their time, because of the sound of both the bands and the grunge genre and how they were engineered to accomodate to that genres' sound.

took-the-red-pill, post: 436407, member: 21836 wrote: I'm talking about great sound and nothing else; not whether it was Sinatra, or Cole, or Buddy Holly, or the Beatles behind the microphone. I'm not talking about whether it was great writing, or a great vocalist, or Bonzo on drums- just the SOUND. I'm not talking about how impressive a feat it was to get good sound out of just two or 4 tracks.

Sure there are exceptions, but generally, the 90's was then it all came together. The early 90s especially, which brought us Nevermind and Ten and such like recordings.

How do you think they acheived such a big sound on both those albums ?

Use of compression and limiting. While maybe not used to the excess of todays' standards, and also not to the extent used on subsequent reissues of both these albums, the sound acheived on both these albums was through compression used on the individual tracks and limiting on the master bus.

I own both these albums on CD, bought back when they were first released. They were big and loud and in-your-face for their time, because of the sound of both these bands and the grunge genre and how they were engineered to accomodate to that genres' sound.

I suspect we are not using the same definition for great sound! Liking it is not important.

I was a teenager in the 70s with technical bent, and can remember sound quality from then onwards. It's pretty clear that there was a quality jump in the 1950s. Recording technology suddenly changed and the recorders could have better dynamics and wider frequency response. Before this, quality, in a modern sense wasn't there at all. In the 50s, the old microphones were still used that produced thin thin, noisy and weedy sounding recordings of the 40s. So it's really tape doing the work. In the 60s, all that really changed was again, tape. Tracks increased. People were using effects for the first time. The music of the day was light. The comment about Paper thin and light kits of the 70s, is rubbish. Pop had thin sounding kits in the early 70s, because the late 60s music genre was still current, and it had light weight kits. On the other hand at the same time we had the huge rock bands with big and deep kicks and chunky snares, and the drum solo was still a feature. The 80s signalled the move to synthesised music, and more highs and lows. Bass guitars were still mainly 4 strings. Low E was your limit, until the synths arrived. The synth era also revealed content above about 12k that was important. Up till then, treble roll off didn't matter, there wasn't anything up there bar hiss! Dolby B so popular in those days suddenly made music dull? I'm struggling to think of anything exciting that happened in the 90s that make it an era to remember? We went back to guitars, and went back to rough and raw sounding bands. So we reverted to the 60s/70s crossover period, but with enhanced recording quality.

In quality terms, CD really did make a difference. I will qualify that. It made a difference on new recordings. Recordings that now could have quiet bits and loud bits without one or both being compromised. At the same time there was a rush to stick out last years record on a CD and apart from no surface noise, they were no better, and perhaps even worse as inept mastering choices were often made.

Compression and dynamics are a genre decision, nothing more. Some genres have it as a characteristic so it's an effect. So if we are looking at quality, age and genre interfere. I like to look at the Robbie williams, buble and other pseudo big band recordings of just a few years back. Compare these with big band recordings from the seventies on, and frankly, they're very similar. Once we get to the 80s the differences in quality are tiny. Digits, I guess.

The surprise, and I think I started it with the Buddy Holly comment was that some old recordings through either care or luck, were recorded superbly well, and what went onto tape was truly excellent in quality terms, but the processes that followed compromised it. It's possible that mono recordings from the 50s are still out there that could be issued today sounding brand new. That is my point.

Genre and taste are what we use to decide if we like it. Personally, I now can't listen to low quality recordings. I found one from a band I was in, in the 70s and it's awful in quality. Terrible, to be honest. I could record that so much better now.

I wasn't inferring that tape was the main medium, I was saying it was when they finally got it without its issues like hiss and enreliable machines. Dat and all that was the rage for many engineers.

Alanis morrisette sung to digital beats and then they re tracked it.

Boys to men had some great vocal sounds. Jay z's first album was done to tape. Along w the mpc naturally. I think it helped the big fat kick. A lot of the stuff done on tape was it was cheap and fairly commonplace. The dats and adats were the mid level producers dream. I know my first recordings from 99' at a local home studio were adats.

The ninties punch of bands like COC was just differently in your face.

But even never mind had samples on it for ambience. They took the producers sample and cut the drum out of it with hating or something to control the ambience.

For the record (no pun intended) nirvana went to the studio and got that drum sound cuz Dave Grohl wanted to sound like slayer. If you listen to raining blood or south of heaven it's the same sound.

Cobain didn't like the final mixes he felt they were too polished and wanted the rough movies to be released. The other side of a million dollar budget is no final say.

That's why for in utero they went to Steve albinin who's notorious for just tossing up mics and hitting record, and recorded the whole album in 10 days.

Ninties has two major sounds, slick and rough. The slick sound is what turned into the über squash of today.

It's when things got really 'produced' where the 60-70 recordings were more real sounding.

I like how weird 90s was. From grunge to ace of bass to green day (which rob cavalo did a killer job on) to TLC. Ninties arguably has more one hit wonders than any other era. It lacks a certian intimacy that trailed off in the late 70s early 80s.

But as far as tape goes if I had to guess I'd say probably 65% was digital. You had 16bit encoding for CDs as the main listening format by 95.

I was just alluding to it was the last straw before dynamics were simply mute unmute, or actual volume rides. It's mainly I belive the influence of hip hop. Hip hop and metal actually have a lot of similarities. And let's please just forget techno. Lol. But that's how tha flatline really came into fashion genre wise.

If you read bob Katz book there's a graphic where it shows a typical songs waveform from each era and the 80"s was the last of actual dynamics. But each era simply got louder and louder. We know this. And I've been saying the past couple years hat we have finally reached 0dbfs and hence max volume for a while.

If you listen to anything recorded since 2014 is slightly darker and not quite so loud. Still void of dynamics. It's gonna be a while until super high bit rates and sample rates change things.

Modern mixing is a lot of multi band, and busing, and dynamic eqs. It's more micro dynamics. Tiny short instantaneous dynamics then on to the next quick stab.

I think a big problem is actually the gain staging at the final listening stage. Amps need to be turned up and usually peak somewhere around 50-75%. So a less brick walled more dynamic track is taking advantage of that gain stage properly. If you match volumes the older stuff will bump more and move more air. Now that things are so hyped you barely crack the volume knob and it's loud. What I think your getting is a power starved amp. An amp that doesn't get enough current to even produce dynamics.

Then you listen to a movie and it sounds great, or is excessively dynamic. I literally have to keep the controller in hand when I used to watch cable. Riding the gain in the same show lol. Never mind commercials.

To point to d s point about knowing how different genres should sound, it couldn't be more true. It's what keeps things interesting as a professional. Getting a jazz kick is way different than the metal click. It's something I've always done. I've always binged on genres, but I've always been eclectic. Except for modern pop-country I know what it should sound like but not my thing. It important to be aware of the different sounds and how to get them, because little things cross over.

As an aside I think the 90s is the last time you'll hear full live performances and musicians. The last of any 'classic' recording technique and musicianship. At least for pop/rock. The people doing it now is more for nastalgia, with a few exceptions.

Fire up that Sheryl crow album on a nice set of speakers and it's fabulous. Just really sonically pleasing. Listen to the roots 'do ya want more' and you hear excellent production and live instrumentation on a hip hop record. I really didn't know it because it was before I started recording, but even some of those Cali skate punk CDs were pretty good. Rancid had a good sound and a rough sound. Bands like nofx were produced by Ryan Greene who I found out years later was a Grammy winner. The dude knew wutsup. Wasn't your typical Mohawk gruff style. This is stuff I learned later on, as I listened with a less 'take it for what it is' stance.

Lol rant almost over. Then you listen to Rick über producer Rubin, and his recordings are rough and primative. He used to manually double the kicks by playing a drum machine in the early beastie boys albums. Then ill communication came out sounding immaculate but full. Rock Rubin said in his book that he's not a particularly skilled engineer. He's also behind some critically criticized 'over loud' albums, particularly the red hot chill peppers. Yet it didn't hurt sales, and their next album wasn't softer or anymore dynamic lol.

I think that on some recordings of yesteryear there needs to be an * saying 'for the time' when talkng about fidelity or subjective audio quality.

I think ds examples sound as the should reguardless of genere. If frank recorded today that's what he should sound like.

But a lot of them sound old. Zep sounds awesome for zep like they should, but the recordings are not technically great by today's standards. I love zep. But there's hiss and stick clicks all over there albums. Which is how it should be *for the time. Black sabbaths only good recording was there first one. And jimi Hendrix wasn't really hifi but perfect in its right. (I will be shot for this next one) but the Beatles are in that category of 'for the time'. They're magical, but by today's standards match the fidelity of a fostex 4 track. But the charm and quality in that sense is hard to imagine any other way. Then there's bands like Floyd, who fidelity wise sound every bit as modern. Today. Their recordings are just that way. Toto lol, steely Dan, those recordings still have a clarity that is evasive today. Paul Simon another one. Toto WA actually the band behind ally of hits just not as toto. And I also heard that the gold records they awarded for album sales, were toto if you actually played it :)

I guess what I'm saying is it's the engineer and producers job to capture he essence and soul and energy of the song/band. Your not finding that in chapter 7, or video 8 on the playlist, it's instinctual to artisitc engineers/producers. Not usingthe new or vintage pre because you just got it. And that soul is what's missing from the recordings and gear for that matter, of today. Technique is a tool to allow you to capture the essence. Engineers today don't know what there doing other than exactly what they do every single time. I'm the last generation, very last, where mic technique and tape (cassette) noise were relavent words. People even two years younger came into a completely different idea of what engineering is. I'm not saying I'm better, but rather broader. My styles err toward 'old schools/classic/traditional'. Hell I didn't even edit much at all like hardly ever, until I started at the studio. And I think a lot of times you'll see people making bands into something they're not.

The essence is the timeless part not the fidelity, or loudness. There's plenty of good music out there. Over limited, more dynamic, tape, clean, wannabe vintage. There is good stuff. It's just not like when FM ruled and selections were more limited, and when popular bands were actually good. Lol somewhere around the late 80s where fabricated 'boy band' MTV generation started that pop became something else.

Rant over.

I saw this on FB this afternoon, and I went thru the listening on my portableradio, eh hem iPhone, and i think it shows what modern mixers consider dynamics. Which I think is not what most of us are talking about when referring to dynamics.

* lol I'm prepared for all gunfire about the Beatles comment above.

https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/learn/article/items/mixing-loud-without-destroying-dynamics-craig-bauer.html?utm_source=FB_mixing_loud_01-27-16-31-44&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=group_1_ad_1

kmetal - I respect the comments you make, but you've obviously got a very different viewpoint on the music history to me - I can cheerfully admit to not knowing who some of these people you mention are, and for the ones that I do know, they're certainly not in my collection. Maybe it's my age, but electro-technica isn't something I equate to any particular quality. As soon as stripped down dance music appeared - I was off. I'm not sure there's really any link between age and quality, once technology was sufficient. I'm also a huge sceptic of the producers who promoted their throw it up and to works technique. Consistent sound and hit after hit just don't work with their random comments. Nowadays we'd call this spin. It could have been a happy accident - once. After that, it's a repeated technique. Not a Sabath fan, but their first recordings were their only good recording? Isn't this linked to content, not quality?

A 70s Floyd recording vs A 2016 Gilmour recording both show attention to detail and quality of recording.

Maybe what we're talking about is the ability to change things? Now that we can change so much, we do, perhaps for the worse? Back in the 70s when I started, my mixer had treble and bass. I had no compressors at all. Now I can draw in any eq curve I want - even crazy ones, and a button on the mixer can add compression to everything - if I want. I just don't want! But I can.

We can all hear quality, but maybe we all hear it differently, and get sidetracked by the genre. Never read Bob Katz book, but surely he can't say the 80s was the last time we had dynamics? Surely the music being recorded sets that? Looking at Gilmour, as you mentioned Floyd - his latest stuff has amazing dynamics in a few songs. The only producer I respect who has had a long career, and gone through all this technology has to be Alan Parsons.

Too many era specific fads like the grungy, spike stuff with added noise and nasty (to my ears) sound. You could recreate the technical limitations of the past, but why would you recreate barriers to quality?

kmetal, post: 436417, member: 37533 wrote: https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/...1-44&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=group_1_ad_1

I looked at the link...does anyone else find it ironic that the second line in the song file attached in the example of how to make your songs commercially loud is
"plug your ears up tight...." :D

paulears, post: 436419, member: 47782 wrote: As soon as stripped down dance music appeared - I was off.

Dance music has been around since swing, then disco, then boom boom clap. I think that really it's the sort of thing where you didn't like something and didn't dig or explore what the 'best offerings' of the genere were, if for no other reason than musical knowledge. I don't particularly like it myself, but I'll keep my ears on it a little. I've got Charlie Parker next to Metallica next to wu tang clan, all in my collection.

paulears, post: 436419, member: 47782 wrote: Not a Sabath fan, but their first recordings were their only good recording? Isn't this linked to content, not quality?

Both in this case. It was their best songs as well. But the first recording was more hifi than Zeppelin. If where talking strictly 'technical' engineering point of view. It was clear drums, distinct bass, and well balance. And that was a gritty band. It want hissy like zeppelin and Hendricks. Hendricks first record was slapped together. Arguably his best but technically not great. Listen to the difference in Drum clarity between the two. Zep didn't get technically real good recordings until houses of the holy.

Gilmore just hasn't changed that's all. He's not 'modern' by any stretch. He's just an animal on guitar and one of the few white blues based guitarist to have real soul. But he's just doing the same things he always has. Katz was referring to overall mastering dynamic range. 70s was like 12-14db 80s 8, 90s 5, 00s 2db.

I think what we are disagreeing on is what good means. If you talking technical engineering then that means clear and well balanced. I'm saying that good is deeper than that. Good is capturing the essence well. Some bands just belong on tape. Some don't. if you have a punk rocker on a pristine Gilmore esq recording they wouldn't percive it as good. As producer you should know this. It doesn't mean you can't clearly present brash, but it's about knowing what's good per band, per song, per genre.

The Beatles aren't technically good recordings. Their good songs. They were done quickly with primative gear. But find a Beatles fan who says they're not 'good recordings' (ducking fire)

In the same right is you put an 808 on a Gilmore track and a decapitator on his voice with a Mesa boogie, it wouldn't be good. But those are all modern 'good' recording tools of today.

What I'm saying is you do subjectively good work not by being technically correct from a text manual veiw, but buy being good and true to the bands artistic vision. Sometimes it's grit sometimes it's not. It's irrelevant from an artisitc veiw of what's technically good.

A lot of those heavily distorted grunge sounds are simply what the bands sounds like. A tama kit with some jcm 900s. A lot of those recordings are crap, they don't sound good technically at all. But if you gave them the Gilmore steely Dan clean clear, technically impressive (and artistically in those cases) would those marshals and screaming vocalist sound any better? I don't think they would. Probably worse since the warts would be even more clear. Technical goodness has nothing to do with art, any more than blue or red have to do with what's being depicted in a painting. A gloomy ugly grey could make a perfect shadow in context.

Music is full of fads and trends and copycats and new gear and old gear that's 'new again' it's all cyclical. But technical goodness and artistic goodness aren't always the same. The ultimate goal of engineering is not ultimate fidelity. It's giving the artist the sound they have in their head to the rest of the world. And sometimes that sounds like crap lol. But those are the lenses that the artist wants to be heard through.

You can't put on a 30s Dixie land record and say it sounds good from a modern technical veiw. It may be well engineered for the time and gear limitations.

Same with the guy in my avatar. Junior kimbrough (butchered spelling) has terrible technical recordings and his playing is sloppy, but it's him. It's his soul. After listening to protools recordings for the last 15 years you hear just how sloppy Hendrix was. That's not technically good at all. But it's every hangers one' defense is that those mistakes are human, and belong there. I say it's what Hendrix did, the idea was to record his energy and vibrations. Other people want robotic quantized 'perfection'. What's good is how well the vision is realized.

Rick Rubin's recordings all have a no frills sound, from tom petty to Danzig to the peppers, to Adele. They all sound as different as each artist. That's his thing capturing the artist playing. His records all capture performance for better or worse. But it's the vision he and they shared and accompished.

I would ask you what's a good guitar sound?

Morison was an awful singer, was he not a good frontman?

Belive me Paul I strive for fidelity and a full clear sound. But some things are clearly ugly, and I think it's my job to present that.

If you look at the majority of actors/actresses, they aren't 'good looking' in a pristine 'handsome/pretty' sense. They are often distinguished. They have 'a look'. Sometimes the evil queen looks like like a troll, other times she's sexy as hell. It's context. Even fashion models, they have distinguished looks, not traditional curves.

Lol long post again. You cited the ability to change things. What about a steely Dan record that took 4 studio years to perfect? Is that not just as obsessive as robotic grid editing to 'perfection'

I say this all the time. How is having groups like the wrecking crew or Ars any different than lady gaga singing over a 'beat', how is having the same backing band 20 songs in a row any different than the 'karaoke' pop singers of today? Its live musicians yes, but they were just tools working for the song.

Butch Vig changed the tempo of a smashing pumpkins song by slicing a little peice of tape from each hit on the tape. How is this different than daw editing? Much slower... But...

How is the Beatles having unlimited studio time to record every little idea they had, different from a guy with his laptop? Better ideas.

George' Martin was a master, and surely the 5th Beatle by all accounts, Rick Rubin is the exact opposite, almost absentee. Both sold millions of records.

Good sound, good songs all of it, is a matter of taste, context, and appropriateness. You only want an orange on an apple tree of it supposed to be there for whatever reason.

I work with a guy who has 80milliom records sold with his name on them. The guy can't open a pluggin window. He does the same thing to every single song that comes through reguardless of genere. Often missing the mark by modern standards. Mixing bottom light and mid forward because 'that's what cuts though on the radio' how is the radio relevant in an iTunes world? The guy hasn't listened to the radio in 20 years. Couldn't name a song from the last decade. But his idea of good is the dated sound that got him his success. And that idea hasn't changed, lol ever. He thinks every mix reguardless of budget should sound like bob clearmountain, and be as technically perfect, and take as long as a mutt Lange production. Attention to detail turns to obsession turns mush. You've got to be willing to change with the times and technology and be able to give the kids what they want. If you want to stay in a niche and your lucky enough to do so your whole career, then more power to ya. But my philosophy is the former. Keep what you know with you and expand your experiences and Arsenal. My goal is to take the vision of the artist and make it reality. If can squeeze my idea of good, and technical goodness I certainly will. I'll probably quit engineering the day I finally make a truly comercial sounding record. But until then if the kid says I'd rather just do it on the four track, I will oblige. For me this art is a journey not a destination. And fwiw most of the current mainstream music does suck imo, but if you look past the surface the spirit of art is resonating just like it always has.

In my opinion, it's not fair to compare technical recording quality because technology changes. It's fair to say how well they did relative to others in the same time/genre. It's fair to say it's still sounds good, or rather doesn't sound bad. What's fair is does it sound good relative to what it's supposed to be? Because often things that sound technically bad sound good to artists and fans alike.

As an aside- if you haven't heard Metallica's 'black album' that is a rough heavy band with a technically good, and artististically good sounding record. It's supposed to be punchy and loud and heavy, but it's not spiky and harsh, especially as far as hard rock goes.

Sean G, post: 436420, member: 49362 wrote: I looked at the link...does anyone else find it ironic that the second line in the song file attached in the example of how to make your songs commercially loud is
"plug your ears up tight...." :D

I must have missed that while I was turning down the volume.

kmetal, post: 436424, member: 37533 wrote: The guy can't open a pluggin window.

Wow, thats' Hangin' Tough :D

paulears, post: 436415, member: 47782 wrote: I suspect we are not using the same definition for great sound! Liking it is not important.

That's what I've been trying to get across... and I'm not even saying that it's easy to do that, either; I do understand that it can sometimes be difficult to not let personal artistic/genre preferences get in the way of listening through the music, and listening strictly for the fidelity of a recording. If one's idea of high fidelity is a wall-shaking kick drum, or a low end that you can hear approaching from miles down the road, or a screaming, shredding guitar, then that's just their interpretation, and there's nothing anyone can do about that. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of those things, either. I like plenty of heavy music. The first time I heard Godsmack I was floored at how good the mix sounded... but I wouldn't want to hear that type of mix or instrumentation on a James Taylor song.

Everybody has genres of music that they like better than others.

But, I guess I just perceive things differently than that. I can listen to a beautifully recorded solo classical guitar, or a solo piano piece, and find the same fidelity, and be just as awestruck by those things as I am when listening to something far more complex, like Nightfly...

My perception of high fidelity goes beyond the music; it goes through it... to the recording quality itself. Was I always like that? Of course not. I grew up with an AM transistor radio attached to the handlebars of my Shwinn bike, and I grew up loving music first.

It wasn't really until I began training to be an engineer (in my early 20's) that I started listening "differently"; the way certain instruments were miked, or how they were placed in a mix; that "perfect" balance of all the tracks, ( which in over 35 years of doing I've still yet to achieve) and I'm saying this in relation to any genre of music - even if I don't particularly care for the song itself; if it's recorded well, I can still find and hear genius within the sonics of a track... because it's not always about how earth-shaking a kick drum is, or how distorted a guitar is... there are many genres where those instruments aren't meant to do that.

It's where you listen to something like Aja', or even those old Sinatra recordings, or a recording of The Cleveland Orchestra - or Godsmack - or even something eccentric like a Didgeridoo piece, and think, "damn... now that's a perfect mix for that song. I wouldn't change a single thing." ;)

And, I can also hear a song that I musically love, but will cringe at the fidelity of, as well. I love the song "Go Now" by The Moody Blues... but it's an awful recording.
Or, something like Louie, Louie by The Kingsmen...it's a terrible recording... but it sure is a fun song to listen to.

You just have to be able to separate personal artistic/genre preference from that of the quality of the recording itself - and, not everyone is able to do that.

Paul just said it way better than I did, and in five million words less than I was able to. :)

paulears, post: 436415, member: 47782 wrote: The comment about Paper thin and light kits of the 70s, is rubbish.

Agreed.

Here's an example of one of those "paper thin sounding kits" from the 70's:
(sorry about the hint of lossiness on this; it is, after all, from youtube).

and another... recorded in '79, released in early '80:

Its been ages since I heard Breaking The Law...I'm having a Donny Thompson induced 80s' flashback (y)

LOL... oh no.. you're not gonna pin that one on me... just because you once decided to try some blotter, and you also happened to have a mullet hair style at the time, and saw yourself in the mirror under the influence... ;)

But are they as paper thin as this...? (firmly places tongue in cheek)

DonnyThompson, post: 436432, member: 46114 wrote: LOL... oh no.. you're not gonna pin that one on me... just because you once decided to try some blotter, and you also happened to have a mullet hair style at the time, and saw yourself in the mirror under the influence... ;)

lol...guilty Your Honour :LOL:

The 80s' were good...what I can remember of it

DonnyThompson, post: 436432, member: 46114 wrote: LOL... oh no.. you're not gonna pin that one on me... just because you once decided to try some blotter, and you also happened to have a mullet hair style at the time, and saw yourself in the mirror under the influence... ;)

....and that was the day I developed the ability to smell colours

That's a bummer donny - youtube won't let me play that one.

This is actually a really good thread - because clearly it shows how we let our own likes influence things that we really all kind of agree on? If you get my drift? We all know what a quality recording is, but we temper it somehow when the song works. A poor Hendrix recording stands the test of time - my efforts in the 70s, are musically poor and technically poor. Together they fail miserably.

I made tea on a session once - big band music. Recorded quality high. Musical quality excellent - BUT - it was for this new fangled stereo thing. I was in my early teens and the brass were on the left channel (as in 100% left) and the saxes and clarinets on the right. Bass, vocals and drums dead centre. All that could be heard of the other was a low level reverb wash. Musically it worked brilliantly. On headphones you sort of wobbled with each doo-wah-doo-wah. When it was released on CD, they'd remixed it, which I always thought a great shame, as it robbed it a bit.

kmetal - any particular Metallica track you suggest I listen to? I rather liked Donny's Steely Dan track - not one I knew?

Sean G, post: 436426, member: 49362 wrote: Wow, thats' Hangin' Tough :D

That is the man I'm referring to lol

Sad but true has a pretty defining hard rock 90's. I think perhaps blues traveler or Dave Mathews band has a much more fidelity based sound.

I try to figure out 'what's good' in each genere by listening to people who are big fans of the genere or era, they'll usually show me some stuff considered good.

I agree the different tastes are personal and really what keeps music so interesting.

Here's a couple. They all sound so different.

I've always loved this girls voice. I super this had a much lower budget than the previous.

And just to get an idea of some terrible recording that has legions of fans. I offer death metal gods cannibal corpse. I appologize in advance. In the metal world the intro scream is considered 'nasty' in the best way. I laugh that this is music. But I warmed up to it after years. Belive me, I began to understand after listening to some 'bad' metal bands, bad in a literally bad way. Disclaimer: this isn't my favorite stuff.

The 90's was so weird. I wish I didn't miss the 80's/70's, but I came around earth a little late. Good chance I may not have made it out alive lol. For some reason the 80's was about good times and the 90's about depression. So weird how decades change things.

There's a book called the physcology of music. It states that most people stop listening/liking new music after their teenage years. The more I thought about it the more I noticed that with many people.

Even with myself. A lot of the eclectic listening comes from just trying to stay in the loop professionally.

I find now I'll like a lot more one off songs, than entire albums and groups.

Canibal Corpse made me squirm - however the Beach Boys band I'm in played a festival, and the band before us played that kind of stuff. Oddly, I could understand it, musically (apart from the vocals, if that's what they are called), but thanks for sharing it. I'm widening - or at least exposing myself (is that as dodgy in US parlance as it is in British?)

Lmaoooo! I think vocals are what they're called but I'm still not quite sure.

Beach boys are pretty cool. I didn't really like them till recently when D posted something of them. Man where they good. I've read about Brian Wilson in engineering articles fascinating.

And yes, exposing yourself is fun, but might just get you arrested. :)

paulears , kmetal

If you must expose yourself...at least wear a sock like The Red Hot Chilli Peppers did...

And no...in the interests of public decency, I will not post the video.

kmetal, post: 436495, member: 37533 wrote: they all sound so different.

Let's not forget here guys, we're listening to audio from YT, here.. most of these audio files are likely compressed codecs, and not 44/24 .wav files, and the res could be anywhere between 128 and 320; and who knows how many conversions these might have been through; so when listening strictly for sonics, remember that they might not be nearly as good as some others. It's gonna depend on any number of factors.

-d.

Sean G, post: 436505, member: 49362 wrote: paulears , kmetal

If you must expose yourself...at least wear a sock like The Red Hot Chilli Peppers did...

And no...in the interests of public decency, I will not post the video.

Me sweaty with my shirt off onstage is enough to scare em away. Lol gotta keep them stage lights low.

DonnyThompson, post: 436510, member: 46114 wrote: Let's not forget here guys, we're listening to audio from YT, here.. most of these audio files are likely compressed codecs, and not 44/24 .wav files, and the res could be anywhere between 128 and 320; and who knows how many conversions these might have been through; so when listening strictly for sonics, remember that they might not be nearly as good as some others. It's gonna depend on any number of factors.

-d.

Oh for shure, you can hear the gargling all over. I was more reffering to the mix style and music style. It's interesting to me that they were all popular in the same 5-8 years but considerably different. I guess maybe 70's was like that too?

Seems like 30's- pre Beatles 60's had like a one genre style to pop. Elvis shook it up but it, seems like those eras had more of a defined sound.

80's kinda had the arena sound or the quirky electro sound like devo.

I could be off here in my thinking so feel free to enlighten me. Always willing to learn and discover.

kmetal, post: 436512, member: 37533 wrote: Oh for shure, you can hear the gargling all over. I was more reffering to the mix style and music style. It's interesting to me that they were all popular in the same 5-8 years but considerably different. I guess maybe 70's was like that too?

Seems like 30's- pre Beatles 60's had like a one genre style to pop. Elvis shook it up but it, seems like those eras had more of a defined sound.

80's kinda had the arena sound or the quirky electro sound like devo.

I could be off here in my thinking so feel free to enlighten me. Always willing to learn and discover.

In that era that you mention - music "styles" aside, as if that's even possible in this case - and thinking purely form a sonic angle, I think different studios had different "sounds" to them. I don't think that the stuff that Elvis, Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison and Jerry Lee Lewis did at Sun Studio in Memphis, sounds anything like the stuff that was coming out of Chess Studios in Chicago, ( Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, BB King .. ) which in turn didn't sound anything like the more "polished" sound that was coming out of Los Angeles at GoldStar or Capitol ( Sinatra, Cole, Perry Como, etc).

I know that in those early days, many of those studios were using custom-built desks, sometimes even thrown together pieces/parts - a lot of those early engineer guys were pretty bad-ass at electronics, too, because they HAD to be; guys like Dave Gold at Goldstar, and Bill Putnam at Universal Audio ... those guys - and guys like them, were actually building their own gear - some of which we still use today, and is highly sought after ... ( LA2A's, 1176's, etc)

So, the fact that each studio had their own unique console, and that there was only one model built - for them only - might have played a big part in the overall sonics... being that they were unique, in that regard.

I think each studio had it's own kind of "signature sound"; maybe it was partly geographical, I'm not sure. And yes, it's hard to ignore the styles in this case, because it's impossible to compare the recordings of Rock-a Billy to Pop to Adult Contemporary of the time period, and that era did have all those styles. From the west coast, Frank Sinatra was singing Blue Moon, Nat Cole was singing Walkin' My Baby Back Home, while from down south, the first strains of Elvis and Carl Perkins were being heard; a little edgier, a bit more intense... and from Chicago, there were early echoes of what was referred to then as "Race Music" and what eventually ( and thankfully) became known simply as "R & B". Howlin Wolf was singing Smokestack Lighting, Muddy Waters was singing Hoochie Coochie Man, and to white-bread America, that stuff was dangerous, man. ... Because it was sexy.

That aside, I think that a kind of "homogenization" of sound started to creep in, as many studios started using the exact same gear to record and mix with... the same consoles, same mics, same pre's, same tape machines, same OB gear.
I think the 70's was "the sound" of Neve - for those who could afford it - and MCI and Harrison for those who couldn't ( although those consoles weren't exactly considered to be all that inexpensive, either) - and the 80's was the sound of SSL/ Oxford, and to a slightly lesser extent, Trident. Of course the Neve's and the MCI's and Harrison's were still around and being used, but SSL seemed to "rule" that decade somehow... and I don't even have an explanation for that, honestly. It's just the way it worked out. It was THE "hot and new" console to have then. For awhile there in the 80's, it seemed as if Mix Magazine had become a nice looking, glossy, 100 page advertisement for SSL. LOL

That era, ( the 80's) even though we might not have realized it then - does have a "certain" sonic signature to it, and it's easier to hear listening back now - to analyze it specifically is difficult because there were so many new things coming out, so much new technology - whether it was the SSL consoles, or the Lexicon Verbs and Delays that were on everything, or the Eventide Harmonizers, or even the tape machines - both analog and digital reel to reel ... and of course, that decade became THE decade for synthesizers, samplers and drum machines. Fairlight reared its head in the late 70's and by the 80's you could hear it on all kinds of productions; big explosions, huge gated snares, - and all of those things lent themselves to a "distinct" sonic fingerprint for that era, that is obvious to us now.

My two cents...

-d.

DonnyThompson, post: 436520, member: 46114 wrote: In that era that you mention - music "styles" aside, as if that's even possible in this case - and thinking purely form a sonic angle, I think different studios had different "sounds" to them. I don't think that the stuff that Elvis, Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison and Jerry Lee Lewis did at Sun Studio in Memphis, sounds anything like the stuff that was coming out of Chess Studios in Chicago, ( Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, BB King .. ) which in turn didn't sound anything like the more "polished" sound that was coming out of Los Angeles at GoldStar or Capitol ( Sinatra, Cole, Perry Como, etc).

I know that in those early days, many of those studios were using custom-built desks, sometimes even thrown together pieces/parts - a lot of those early engineer guys were pretty bad-ass at electronics, too, because they HAD to be; guys like Dave Gold at Goldstar, and Bill Putnam at Universal Audio ... those guys - and guys like them, were actually building their own gear - some of which we still use today, and is highly sought after ... ( LA2A's, 1176's, etc)

So, the fact that each studio had their own unique console, and that there was only one model built - for them only - might have played a big part in the overall sonics... being that they were unique, in that regard.

I think each studio had it's own kind of "signature sound"; maybe it was partly geographical, I'm not sure. And yes, it's hard to ignore the styles in this case, because it's impossible to compare the recordings of Rock-a Billy to Pop to Adult Contemporary of the time period, and that era did have all those styles. From the west coast, Frank Sinatra was singing Blue Moon, Nat Cole was singing Walkin' My Baby Back Home, while from down south, the first strains of Elvis and Carl Perkins were being heard; a little edgier, a bit more intense... and from Chicago, there were early echoes of what was referred to then as "Race Music" and what eventually ( and thankfully) became known simply as "R & B". Howlin Wolf was singing Smokestack Lighting, Muddy Waters was singing Hoochie Coochie Man, and to white-bread America, that stuff was dangerous, man. ... Because it was sexy.

That aside, I think that a kind of "homogenization" of sound started to creep in, as many studios started using the exact same gear to record and mix with... the same consoles, same mics, same pre's, same tape machines, same OB gear.
I think the 70's was "the sound" of Neve - for those who could afford it - and MCI and Harrison for those who couldn't ( although those consoles weren't exactly considered to be all that inexpensive, either) - and the 80's was the sound of SSL/ Oxford, and to a slightly lesser extent, Trident. Of course the Neve's and the MCI's and Harrison's were still around and being used, but SSL seemed to "rule" that decade somehow... and I don't even have an explanation for that, honestly. It's just the way it worked out. It was THE "hot and new" console to have then. For awhile there in the 80's, it seemed as if Mix Magazine had become a nice looking, glossy, 100 page advertisement for SSL. LOL

That era, ( the 80's) even though we might not have realized it then - does have a "certain" sonic signature to it, and it's easier to hear listening back now - to analyze it specifically is difficult because there were so many new things coming out, so much new technology - whether it was the SSL consoles, or the Lexicon Verbs and Delays that were on everything, or the Eventide Harmonizers, or even the tape machines - both analog and digital reel to reel ... and of course, that decade became THE decade for synthesizers, samplers and drum machines. Fairlight reared its head in the late 70's and by the 80's you could hear it on all kinds of productions; big explosions, huge gated snares, - and all of those things lent themselves to a "distinct" sonic fingerprint for that era, that is obvious to us now.

My two cents...

-d.

Thats a pretty good observation Donny.

Yeah good points. I wasn't really thinking of it from a gear perspective.

In behind the glass (Howard Massey) he asks the engineers do they still think there's an LA and a NY sound and the consensus was 'not really'. When I read it (only a few years ago) I was like "what's the NY sound or LA sound" we all know Nashville sound. I came into this well after those days. It's just recently when I hear like a j. Guiles song I go oh ok I think that's what they mean by NY sound. Big snare verb (lol back stairwell at the power station, played thru a jbl) slap echo on vocs, and not of particularly high fidelity.

I've always been into the "LA" sound I guess. big tall shimmery mixes, that's always what has been and still is evasive in my work. I didn't realize that until recently. Even the punk rock from Cali had fidelity. The east coast sounds ruggedness is good for the heavier generes, but even the NY hardcore sound, a decent amount of which was done over at the studio, I never particularly cared for. Too much verb and not enough meat on the guitars. Yet that's where I landed.

Me and one of my buddies have been talikng about that recently as we feel we're missing a bit of the 'Hollywood' gloss and techniques.

The sounds are homogenized now but i think it's more of the east coast sound faded and the west coast and Nashville sound became 'the sound'

Sonic signature is out the window for now. Although there are bands themselves who develop signature sounds. Tool, jack white, black keys, all kinda have recognizable tone.

I wish poeple would spend some money at least on the drums so cool signature rooms, and new ones can stay alive.

I'm trying to think of mixers or producers who have a characteristic sound currently.

paulears have you seen the Brian Wilson movie 'love and mercy'??

I saw Love and Mercy. I thought it was "meh"... neither one of the actors playing various stages of Wilson's life really resembled him; and they left out a lot; those years where he gained 100+ pounds and wouldn't get out of bed... they left quite a bit out, and unless you were familiar with his story ( which I was after reading Wilson's autobiography Wouldn't It Be Nice) I felt the movie lacked quite a lot.

Then again, I suppose it's difficult to try and get all that stuff in within a 90-100 min time frame, but they didn't even really try to do that... and I guess that's what bothered me. Along with the Eugen Landy character, played by Paul Giamatti; who was portrayed as an evil, conniving leach; which, he did have some of those traits later on; but what wasn't shown is that he also was the one solely responsible for getting Brian out of his bed and up and moving; losing all the weight, eating right, exercising, and keeping all the booze, coke, and grass away from him.

The movie didn't show that... and I thought it left the viewer wondering, or at least, not getting the whole story...

DonnyThompson, post: 436528, member: 46114 wrote: I saw Love and Mercy. I thought it was "meh"... neither one of the actors playing various stages of Wilson's life really resembled him; and they left out a lot; those years where he gained 100+ pounds and wouldn't get out of bed... they left quite a bit out, and unless you were familiar with his story ( which I was after reading Wilson's autobiography Wouldn't It Be Nice) I felt the movie lacked quite a lot.

Then again, I suppose it's difficult to try and get all that stuff in within a 90-100 min time frame, but they didn't even really try to do that... and I guess that's what bothered me. Along with the Eugen Landy character, played by Paul Giamatti; who was portrayed as an evil, conniving leach; which, he did have some of those traits later on; but what wasn't shown is that he also was the one solely responsible for getting Brian out of his bed and up and moving; losing all the weight, eating right, exercising, and keeping all the booze, coke, and grass away from him.

The movie didn't show that... and I thought it left the viewer wondering, or at least, not getting the whole story...

Interesting I haven't watched the movie yet.
I'm interested in the bio now that you've mentioned it.

Lol Hollywood Always has to leave time for the love story, in any movie about anything.

kmetal, post: 436530, member: 37533 wrote: Hollywood Always has to leave time for the love story, in any movie about anything.

Yeah, and that really didn't come around for him until much later than what the movie portrayed. Wilson had left Landy by that time, by several years in fact, so what the movie shows is pure fiction.

But, as you say, Hollywood needs that. It's like obligatory or something...

Not gonna say anymore for fear of spoiling it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

The most remarkable thing about Brian Wilson was he was deaf in one ear. And he like coined a sound. Some people are gifted, often at the price of those sorts of demons. It's a strange aspect of human design.

I haven't seen the whole Wrecking Crew documentary, only the trailers and the making of on YT, but where they show Brian Wilson in the studio with The Wrecking Crew he looks so young, Ms Carol Kaye remarks during the recording of Good Vibrations how talented he was, even at that age.

He knew exactly how he wanted that song to sound...amazing