Why can’t I replicate the sound of commercial recordings?

I have a good setup. I7; 32 go ram, all sad drives. I was using Samplitude Pro X 3 but am moving slowly back to Cakewalk. I am at a point in life that I want to re-record many of my songs from the 80s and 90s simply because they all sound so rough because of my limitations of the time.

One song seems to sound quite a bit like Voices Carry by Til Tuesday sonically. So, I listen to the tracks and get it close to what I think it sounds like. I then play Voices Carry and mine sounds anemic. I can’t explain it. My snare sounds similar but was dry. Theirs has a reverb on it but stays crisp. When I add reverb to my snare, it adds a low end trail. I tried to use a new to bring it up but doesn’t sound right.

Am I doing this the right way by comparing to the original? I am not copying their song by any means. I am just trying to emulate their sound. This is a lot harder than it seems. I am using Waves plugins to do this. Any help will be appreciated.
 
Trying to emulate someone else's sound is a useful exercise. It allows you to figure out what and how they did to achieve a particular sound, and then for you to develop and expand your arsenal of techniques. One difficulty, though, is that while you know what your source sound is like, you have no idea what they started with. Furthermore, you have no idea on what they are using. Reverse engineering a sound is difficult, and in some cases may be impossible if they have access to equipment, environment or performance that you don't have.
 
There is a lot to getting a good recording. It's not fair to yourself to compare your efforts to a commercial song, let alone one that was a big hit. They had many things going for them that most home recording types don't have. A first class studio, top notch equipment and an engineer who had a lot of experience and knowledge. They also have many intricate parts playing in the background that you probably aren't adding to your song. The lead vocal sounds like 3 or 4 parts; one might be a whisper track lying under the main lead vocal.

When a track sounds anemic, it will usually require judicial EQing to bring it to life. But arrangement and instrumentation have a lot to do with it, too.

If you think your reverb has a "low end" trail, then try EQing the low freqs out of it. If you think your vocal is too muffled, add EQ in the 4k-6k range.

Be sure you are listening to your mixes accurately. That means decent monitors and a well-treated mixing environment.

There are so many things, the list is endless. Start with what you don't like and address each thing individually.
 
I have a good setup. I7; 32 go ram, all sad drives. I was using Samplitude Pro X 3 but am moving slowly back to Cakewalk.

.....................

I am using Waves plugins to do this.

None of those ^^^ things are going to make any difference on their own in your end results.
You don't really discuss your recording process or what you are doing...you just mention the basic gear you are using (not sure if there's more gear than what you mentioned).

It's about the whole production process from the first track you lay down, and the gear you use and way you use it, that can make a big difference in what happens later on in the computer. Not to mention...the recording space(s) you do it in.

Maybe you can describe in greater detail how you are recording...from start to finish...and with what, etc...but gear alone will only get you part of the way there, the rest is in the skill and techniques.
 
Q
Why can't I replicate the sound of commercial recordings
A
The same reason so many of us can't as well . In a word, SKILL

With advances in technology, we all have available to us pro studio quality gear that is affordable.
What we dont have are the roomsthe big boys have. But t the same time, some ofthe big boys are doing records, film soundtracks TV soundtracks, commercials, jingles, etc in the same types of spaces we have. So again, skill.

Gear isn't in the equation too much. On this forum, I've heard 4 track cassette recordings that were radio ready, I've heard recordings done with one cheap mic, an interface, laptop and mixed on headphones......radio ready.

The good news is you're in a place with people who have like minded goals that are willing to help you out.

You just gotta put in the time, practice, learn and get better.
It's never the gear. Thats the sad truth.

As much as I like spirited driving, if someone gave me an F-1, I doubt I'd win the race. Most likely I'd end up crashing the car lol.
:D
 
Three words. Room. Room. Room.

Yes......and no.
Plenty of unskilled people have rented out a good room and still made shit recordings.

Back in the 90's in LA, when the big studio recession hit hard, The Record Pant would do block rates of 2 to 400 bucks a day. Great studio, great rooms. Cheap prices just to keep afloat.
A lot of local aspiring bands would pool their pennies together to record demos at the 'World Famous' Record Plant. Still heard a lot of shit.
In today's climate, lot of name guys are doing most stuff out of their home studios because the big budgets of yesteryear are gone.
They may rent out a big (pricey) room for drums or something, but the bulk of the work is being done at home.

So, once again. SKILL
:D

Ps. One can't always afford to rent or build a great room. But one can ALWAYS improve their skills. And isn't that part of the reason we're all here? ;)
 
It all starts from the start as everyone has stated. Musician, gear, room.... Any one of them can kill or make a recording great.

There is no answer to the question other than that you will get it when you get it.

Nobody is going to replicate the exact sound of another artis't record. If that were possible, everything would sound the same.

Experience and embracing being unique is a better ideal I think. But as I am, keep learning as you go. I get's better every recording. Hopefully...
 
Yes......and no.

and more no than yes...obviously you need a "room" where there are no sounds to be picked up by the mic...In another thread where the OP was asking how to capture the genie in the bottle of Prince recordings it led me to do some research of which one really surprising thing was that Prince recorded many of his vocals in the control room with a SM 57 cantilevered over the faders...WTF? an sm57 in a control room not the "treated studio room" so...

Yes a quiet room without a lot of bounce is good but Experience and Skill are what it takes to get good tracks and that just takes practice ...a lot of practice, trial and error and eventually if you work hard you just might reap good results.
 
Having done a lot of live sound I got to know about dealing with bleed. For the most part it's proximity, inverse square law. Polar pattern helps. If you're close enough to the mic the room doesn't matter. Of course sometimes you can't get that close so the room comes into play. Singing directly into the grill of a 57 is going to effectively eliminate the room. Of course you have to control your consonants to avoid unwanted effects, but that can be learned.
 
Having done a lot of live sound I got to know about dealing with bleed. For the most part it's proximity, inverse square law. Polar pattern helps. If you're close enough to the mic the room doesn't matter. Of course sometimes you can't get that close so the room comes into play. Singing directly into the grill of a 57 is going to effectively eliminate the room. Of course you have to control your consonants to avoid unwanted effects, but that can be learned.

Wirh live sound you're rarely dealing with anything other than dynamic mics. :)
In studio with condensers and having instruments not completely isolated, you're bound to get some bleed. ;)
(Which in my opinion, isn't a bad thing for that 'vintage' analog sound .)
:D
 
"Why can't I replicate the sound of commercial recordings?"
Millions of dollars of cumulative gear, real estate, and expertise.

Fortunately, you don't need the full gamut of gear available to commercial recordings, and there's modern consumer gear better than anything the Beatles has.
For expertise, that's just a matter of putting in your 10,000 hours.
Real estate? Well. That's always gonna be a hard one.
 
Trying to emulate someone else's sound is a useful exercise.
Very true. Successfully mimicking techniques enables you to apply them at your own discretion. Mimicking a technique in one context won't guarantee it works in another context, but you develop a sense of where they will work and where they won't. You can then exhert your own creativity and taste.

to develop and expand your arsenal of techniques.
Precisely.
 
I have a good setup. I7; 32 go ram, all sad drives. I was using Samplitude Pro X 3 but am moving slowly back to Cakewalk. I am at a point in life that I want to re-record many of my songs from the 80s and 90s simply because they all sound so rough because of my limitations of the time.

One song seems to sound quite a bit like Voices Carry by Til Tuesday sonically. So, I listen to the tracks and get it close to what I think it sounds like. I then play Voices Carry and mine sounds anemic. I can’t explain it. My snare sounds similar but was dry. Theirs has a reverb on it but stays crisp. When I add reverb to my snare, it adds a low end trail. I tried to use a new to bring it up but doesn’t sound right.

Am I doing this the right way by comparing to the original? I am not copying their song by any means. I am just trying to emulate their sound. This is a lot harder than it seems. I am using Waves plugins to do this. Any help will be appreciated.

The most important thing here is that NO ONE CAN HELP WITH ANYTHING UNLESS YOU POST RECORDINGS.

No one here (including highly experienced pros like myself) can tell you ANYTHING of importance without hearing what you're getting from your recordings right now. Its also difficult to critique material without having some knowledge of the source, and the steps you took to get from point A to point B.

The only meaningful response anyone can offer is to your last question. Yes. There is merit in your process of re-creating their tracks in attempt to emulate their sound.
 
None of those ^^^ things are going to make any difference on their own in your end results.

Maybe you can describe in greater detail how you are recording...from start to finish...and with what, etc...but gear alone will only get you part of the way there, the rest is in the skill and techniques.

Miro, if he's trying to re-create stuff, you need to know what tools he has available to really help him with anything.

Trusso, if you're serious about getting help with this stuff, people will need to walk you through specific parts of the weak areas of your the recordings. To avoid people making recommendations which require tools you don't have, you're gonna want to create a working list of the tools you have available. List all of your available instruments, virtual instruments, plugins, DAWs, interfaces, mics etc... Don't do it here on this thread. When you have a recording you want help with, post it to that thread at the same time you post the recording.
 
Miro, if he's trying to re-create stuff, you need to know what tools he has available to really help him with anything.

Right...that's what I said (if you read/quote my entire post). :)

All he mentioned was his computer hardware and that he's using Waves plugs...but nothing really specific about the audio gear, or even which Waves plugs...or his production process.
 
Wirh live sound you're rarely dealing with anything other than dynamic mics. :)
In studio with condensers and having instruments not completely isolated, you're bound to get some bleed. ;)
(Which in my opinion, isn't a bad thing for that 'vintage' analog sound .)
:D

Drum overheads are usually condensers, anything from Audix F15 to Shure SM81 to AKG C360, or even iFet and U87 in a mid/side arrangement. I use AKG C535EB and C1000S in live situations quite regularly. Then there's the odd bluegrass band that just has to use their AT4030 on stage. Whether live or in the studio, condenser or dynamic, there are ways to manage (not necessarily eliminate) bleed.
 
The main reasons people tend to use dynamic on stage are durability and (lack of) sensitivity. Condensers tend to be a bit more fragile in general and that is just not a good thing in any live context. They can also just too loud for some sources. You can usually turn a dynamic up enough, but sometimes can't actually turn the condenser down far enough to avoid banging the rails. In both cases it's a often a compromise between practical reliability and actual sound quality.

It has nothing to do with bleed or feedback or anything. I guess a lot of working engineers do labor under those superstitions, but they're just being silly. Similar polar patterns and proximity always produce similar results no matter how the element itself works.
 
Thanks for all of the responses. I kept it a bit vague because I was confused that I couldn't replicate the eq and space of a simple kick\snare sound. I'm not trying to recreate the song. But if I cant get passed the minimal drums sounds, I am screwed. Most of what I will be recording are only vocals and direct bass or guitar. Possibly mic'd guitar. The drums, piano, synths, etc will all be vst instruments, so there is not much mic'ing going on in the studio. My room is my basement but i recently bought acoustic foam for walls and corner foam bass traps (which are probably not very effective at all).

My way of thinking is if i can sonically match some of my favorite recordings, ones that sound great in my room, then my songs should sound good on the outside. That may be a flawed thought process. I will post a short passage soon and post the link shortly.
 
Back
Top