Questions/Comments Music Production [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Questions/Comments Music Production



Worf101
02-09-2009, 05:23 AM
We're finishing mixdown (we're digital so I guess we actually don't mixdown anymore perhaps final mixes is the right term) on our second album. A couple of weeks ago I took home semi-final mixes of all the tunes. While I don't have a dedicated 2-channel system or room, I do my "critical listening" on my Onkyo 905 in "pure audio" mode. I also listen to the tunes on a variety of systems (bedroom, computer, car etc...). After a couple of days picking and listening I then use other professionally done albums in all genres, Jazz, Rock/Pop, RnB, Classical as a reference to "cleanse my sonic pallette" so to speak. Here are some things I've noticed.

1. The job of Producer/Engineer was way more important in the analog days. "Sounds" were real, Stax/Volt was not Motown, which was not Apple which was not you name it. Even if you don't know the song you might be able to pick the label out by listening.

2. Production is way more homogenized today. Levels don't vary, everythings sounds way too similar.

3. Everything today is mixed way loud. Perhaps for the Ipod generation I don't know.

4. Even professionally mixed albums of the 80's and 90's reveal "bad mixes". Vocals too high in the mix as to call way too much attention to it. Or vocals so low as to make the lyrics nigh unintelligble.

5. Making your own music is still the one of the greatest thrills I know. It's wonderful to be humming a tune and realize that it's one of yours.

Da Worfster

Troy
02-09-2009, 09:23 AM
1. The job of Producer/Engineer was way more important in the analog days. "Sounds" were real, Stax/Volt was not Motown, which was not Apple which was not you name it. Even if you don't know the song you might be able to pick the label out by listening.

I disagree. Production is as important today as it ever was. Perhaps you can't pick out the label by listening, but I can still pick out the sound of a band or producer.

Some will argue that being able to pick out a label or producer by hearing the song is a bad thing. Sort of like music in a film, you shouldn't notice it. I'm not one of those people.



2. Production is way more homogenized today. Levels don't vary, everythings sounds way too similar.

Yeah, I kinda get this. Just because staggeringly sophisticated and easy to use music recording software has come built into every Mac since 2004, and that there's millions around the world now experiencing home recording for the first time, doesn't mean they are all good at it or understand the principals. Everyone seems to be using the presets and defaults and that may be what you're hearing.



3. Everything today is mixed way loud. Perhaps for the Ipod generation I don't know.

Compression. It sucks. There was a couple of links and rants on this site about it a few years ago.



4. Even professionally mixed albums of the 80's and 90's reveal "bad mixes". Vocals too high in the mix as to call way too much attention to it. Or vocals so low as to make the lyrics nigh unintelligble.

No argument, there have always been bad recordings, but the 80s was especially so because it was the beginning of the digital revolution in instrument and recording and no one really understood how to use this new technology. So much '80s music sounds brittle and harsh.



5. Making your own music is still the one of the greatest thrills I know. It's wonderful to be humming a tune and realize that it's one of yours.

Fuk'n-a Bubba.

In 2004 I became obsessed with Apple's Garageband, gave myself a crash course in music theory, and wrote, programmed, recorded and produced about 150 songs. All without any musical experience. I had never even played an instrument before. It was a total blast.

Suburban Tiki (http://www.designshed.com/toonage/SuburbanTiki.mp3) is still my favorite.

Kevio
02-09-2009, 11:11 AM
Are your points 2 and 3 with regards to your own productions or with regards to the other stuff you have been listening to lately?

Kudos to you for spending time with your mixes and listening on different equipment.

BradH
02-09-2009, 02:47 PM
No argument, there have always been bad recordings, but the 80s was especially so because it was the beginning of the digital revolution in instrument and recording and no one really understood how to use this new technology. So much '80s music sounds brittle and harsh.

I think it was because a lot of producers were trying to sound like Hugh Padgham and failed, I don't think it was necessarily because of digital recording. Most of the 80's was recorded in analog anyway.

Regarding compression: It usually happens in the disc mastering process but if it's in the mixdown then you're stuck with it. I've heard some really good music trashed because of high compression lately. Robert Randolph's Unclassified should be called Unlistenable. That's a real shame. I hope it's not in the original mix because I'd like to hear that one from an lp or maybe MoFi will redo it.

Worf101
02-10-2009, 06:05 AM
Are your points 2 and 3 with regards to your own productions or with regards to the other stuff you have been listening to lately?

Kudos to you for spending time with your mixes and listening on different equipment.
Items 2 and 3 came about from listening to past albums I'd done as well as reference material, cross era and cross genre. Some of the analog stuff I'd done was mixed pretty frightfully as well. I'm working on it though...

Hey Brad, one thing about ProTools, there's no need to mix-down you just put all the tracks, down at the same time. You want to change something, you don't have to "start from scratch" just reopen the recording, it is a lifesaver.

Da Worfster

BradH
02-10-2009, 07:31 AM
Hey Brad, one thing about ProTools, there's no need to mix-down you just put all the tracks, down at the same time.

Good point. The "mix-down" term just shows my age. The point I was really getting at is the final mix is handed over at some point for the mastering process.

Speaking of mix-downs, a lot of stuff from the early 70's was done on the (then) new 16-track boards. When you start bouncing that many tracks down to 2-track without modern noise reduction you induce a lot of tape hiss so producers started recording the individual tracks in a compressed manner so they wouldn't be buried under hiss in the mix. It was the hip new thing to do. People like Rundgren and Eddie Offord used this method a lot. (I think Rundgren took it way too far.) It's a different sounding kind of compression though, not like one where the final master is compressed out the wazoo like nowadays. I was hearing it the other night listening to Santana's Caravanserai from 1972. It's weird, you can hear it's compressed but it's a different kind of compression. Maybe I'm used to it because my ears were attuned to that era back then. Except Rundgren, he really went overboard. Ken Scott is an example of it being done perfectly. Of course, that level of compression is no longer necessary but it's worse than ever now because of marketing reasons.

Kevio
02-10-2009, 10:13 AM
Producers and tracking engineers would often overdrive the analog tape recorder seeking that magnetic compressed sound. Mixer would often overdrive analog consoles and master 2-track machines to get even more compression. Mastering engineers were originally just supposed to get it cut to two sides of lacquer master discs but to do that, they'd need to do some limiting and equalization (to keep the needle from flying out of the groove). At some point mastering started being more about sweeting than about cutting disks.

Anyways, it's all done digitally now for the most part. The digital process does not respond in an artistically useful way to being overdriven so digital algorithms (a.k.a. plugins) have been invented to achieve similar results. The plugins offer a more extreme range of options than the analog equipment did. You turn analog recording gear past "10" and you quickly get beyond artistically useful settings. The plugins (digital simulations of analog equipment) have been tweezed to allow "extreme" settings to "12" and beyond. If it goes to 12, some artists are going to want to turn it to 12 for bragging rights if nothing else.

Kevio
02-10-2009, 10:22 AM
2. Production is way more homogenized today. Levels don't vary, everythings sounds way too similar.Here's an article on Auto-Tune (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1877372-1,00.html) that may explain some of that sameness.

In addition to taking some to most of the emotion out of the performance, I find that Auto-Tune also takes out a lot of the texture and subtlety that can really only be fully appreciated and enjoyed in a good reproduction system.

Worf101
02-11-2009, 05:57 AM
Good point. The "mix-down" term just shows my age. The point I was really getting at is the final mix is handed over at some point for the mastering process.

Speaking of mix-downs, a lot of stuff from the early 70's was done on the (then) new 16-track boards. When you start bouncing that many tracks down to 2-track without modern noise reduction you induce a lot of tape hiss so producers started recording the individual tracks in a compressed manner so they wouldn't be buried under hiss in the mix. It was the hip new thing to do. People like Rundgren and Eddie Offord used this method a lot. (I think Rundgren took it way too far.) It's a different sounding kind of compression though, not like one where the final master is compressed out the wazoo like nowadays. I was hearing it the other night listening to Santana's Caravanserai from 1972. It's weird, you can hear it's compressed but it's a different kind of compression. Maybe I'm used to it because my ears were attuned to that era back then. Except Rundgren, he really went overboard. Ken Scott is an example of it being done perfectly. Of course, that level of compression is no longer necessary but it's worse than ever now because of marketing reasons.
Yah, my last album was done on analog on synched DAT's. It got the job done but was a pain when it came to bouncing tracks and mixing down. Odd that you mention "Caravanserai" I purchased the digital remaster about October. I used to play some of the songs off this album when in High School so I bought it for old times sake. Still love it.

Thanks for the masterful information on overdriving and mastering.

Da Worfster

Worf101
02-11-2009, 06:02 AM
Yeah, I've watched Tony, the owner/engineer run a wide variety of plug-ins at my vocals in particular. Could never find the right mic to cut some of the brightness off of my voice so we attacked it on the backend. Some of those plug-ins are brilliant, some are pretty wack. As for Auto-Tune, I feel it's practically destroyed what kids today call RnB. By RnB they mean anything NOT rap or hip hop and done at a slower pace. I can't tell one of these guys from another they all sound like nasally little b****es. Can't stand it. Back in the day Luther didn't sound like Teddy who was NOT Smokey, who never touched Levi Stubbs. Today... pheh... It sucks getting old. But I will admit we used Auto-Tune to bring a particularly bad Sax solo into the realm of living.

Da Worfster