SMOOTH, HOMOGENOUS, EXCITING mixes... Is it possible???

M

Mercuri

New member
You know that sound??

Listen to Shania Twain's latest release.

I can't GET that sound... And I know that once people get there, they don't post on this board anymore. (Why would you? It becomes trade secret.)

I've got a REALLY nice all-digital setup with analog tape simulators from Crane Song and a little Telefunken gear, Neumann mics, custom silver Mogami cabling, really nice instruments, a great acoustic environment, and a singer with a killer voice. I'm recording at 96kHz 24bit.

I can tell everyone right now that getting top digital gear sounds that much closer to getting that top-studio sound. But it's NOT the same. Even with quality mastering, I can't match it. And I know simply tweaking a few little things won't help.

Here's an example that maybe you can find in your own mixes: Play your tune at low volume. Can you hear little mistakes? Do things sometimes sound 'obvious' and 'amateur' like backup vocals? Even if you edit the crap out of your mixes, something still feels 'off'. Now listen to a mix like Shania's. PERFECT. Even though she doesn't have a fantastic voice, her little mistakes and lack of vocal mastery sound GOOD. It SITS and actually sounds GOOD and acceptable. Also, do your mixes sound as EXCITING and alive as hers at low volume?

(BTW, I'm just using this particular artist as an example because it's in the CD player right now. ;) )

Why do canned drums on professional albums sound 'real' (not in the literal sense)? Why can a bad singer sound 'good'? Why does bass sound so unobvious and just powerfully supportive of the music?? Electric guitars sparkle!! The acoustics are washy and rhythmic. The percussion has a smooth punchiness.

Mutt Lange, if you're reading this, answer me dammit!!

It's not a matter of EQ. Nor compression. Nor high quality preamps or mic'ing technique. This all helps, but it doesn't quite do it.

WHAT IS THE SECRET???

The only thing I can think of is tracking everything to tape, transferring to a computer for editing, and mixing in analog outside the box. Would that 'naturalize' everything and make it smoother??

Sorry about the long post everyone... I'm just curious... ;) ;) :D
 
Shame on you, my friend, for not reading your daily mixerman diaries.

Anyone ever notice how, in that particular saga, if the drums don't quite sound "right," mixerman will promptly call in a dedicated drum tech to change the heads, rent a new kit, etc?

Also, from the sounds of things, they've got a whole stock of various big dollar amps for Harmon to play through (is it Harmon or Eyore? I forget).

Anyway, I suppose if if they wanted a particular type of string for any of the guitars, no matter how rare, with the kinds of budgets they're working with it's probably only a phone call away.

Mercuri, it would be fun to see you in a high-budget session. Picture it now:

Mercuri: "Guitar Tech, those pickups sound like Dog shit. Now I want you to run out and pick me up some custom Joe Bardens, please, and have them changed for me by Tuesday AM. Have it set up while you're at it, and pick the strawberry cheese danish."

Imagine having a guitar tech on hand to perfectly tune the guitars for you . . . not every hour or so . . . try after every freakin' take ! And ditto for the snare heads, if you should so choose.

I've had the fortune of being able to record musicians from all socioeconomic backgrounds . . . all skill levels and with all levels of gear. As much as I'd like to think I can be responsible for a great recording, I continually come to the sad realization that what I'm doing is so small and insignificant.

Picture A $2000 guitar being strummed by a professional-level guitar player who takes care of his instrument, only buys the very best strings, changes them and breaks them in regularly, gets regular setups, tunes it constantly and has perfect pitch to where he can even bend it in to tune if he has to. Imagine he's an expert on the subtle nuances of the various brands of pickups and only buys the very best. Now imagine him pluging in to a world-class amplifier that has been similarly maintained in a meticulous manner.

Now imagine what a genius you will look like after you simply point a mic at his amp and hit "record." :D

Suppose, on the other hand, that you're dealing with someone of lesser talent and perfectionism . . . but you're Mutt Lange and you've got enough money lying around to hire the other guy as your guitar tech! :D

I don't care what anyone says . . . those are some sizeable gaps we probably won't be able to bridge anytime soon untill we get to work with the kinds of budgets they're working with.

So aside from having that kind of money to throw around, what's the secret? I truly believe the secret is in having the perfectionist's attitude, like the guitarist I mentioned. Being a meticulous, anal, freak over getting the best sound you can get on everything you record. Never skimping . . . never taking a shortcut. Right down to the kinds of beaters, to the brand of string to the type of pickup to the quality of the cable. Every detail carefully and methodically sweated.

It's how the greatest chefs in the world prepare the finest gourmet dishes and how world-class athletes prepare in the off-season. Personally, I highly doubt I'll ever get there, because I'm always too quick to say: "Oh well, whatever" whenever I hear something that doesn't quite sound right. My only alternative would be to drag the session and take up more time harping on my clients to do things they are not motivated enough (or don't have the personal resources) to take care of on their own.

You can only make someone sound as perfect as their level of personal motivation, talent, and devotion to their craft will allow.
 
Last edited:
chessrock, you made it sound as if the players and singers were it!! the secret to great sounding mixes!!??
I know there is quite a bit in their hands and throats :D as well, but as Mercuri said, the enginners (should) have some secrets of their own too....why doesn't that world class player with custom made pick-ups and whatever kind of strings come and record their album in my bedroom??
Just wanted to say that mixers and mixing equip. play a bit bigger part in it....IMO anyway....
cheers

BTW, Mercuri,
I don't know what the secret is!!:D :D
 
Brainstorming Action

Most of us here probably know what you're talking about... Most of us here probably find the same thing... Most of us here probably have our own theory about it...

I think every recording session I do, my previous theory about it gets thrown-out the window or at least modified to varying degrees because of gone-on in the session!

A little "live" random brainstorming:

I use to think it was all Neve and API pres and LA2A, 1176, dbx 160, and SSL compressors/limiters.

BUT, I now realize there are many recordings with "that sound" and Neve or API preamps certainly weren't used.

I've sat-in on tracking sessions at a few studios where the simplest control room monitor mix while tracking (with the same single effect on each track) sounded like it was already mixed!!! It was THAT good without ANY additional (nothing you wouldn't normally do) effort. Anything else that would be done during the mix would just make it even that much better... Like adding your favorite seasonings to a meal!

Now the input signal paths were certainly nothing more special than what you or I would use. For example, for vocals... I mean a good condenser (usually just an old stock U87 or something in these cases) like a few hundred dollar Studio Projects C3 or anything else just as good but different, work great! A decent preamp (just the console pre in an Otari or SSL in these cases) like a Studio Projects VTB1, FMR RNP, Peavey VMP-2, or anything at least that decent! And if you wish, while tracking, a decent compressor and/or limiter going to tape (just one of the digitally controlled ones in the console in these cases) such as the FMR RNC or anything at least that decent.

The monitor set-ups were certainly nothing any more "decent" than what we'd use either! I mean the monitors were always Yamaha NS-10s, except one studio was running Meyer HD-1s (extra nice and extra expensive). However, they all were also running nice amps; most of them Brystons. That's nothing uncommon though either.

So, I've figured it must be the combination of the console (usually an Otari or SSL) and 2", 24-trk recorder (usually an Otari). Then, I've had the house engineer at one of the studio's tell me it doesn't matter if it's 2", ADAT, or Protools, he can always get the same end result. By the way, he ALWAYS mixes through the console! Now after sitting-in on a few of his tracking sessions, I can confirm that all the ""quick mix" after an 8-12 hour tracking session" mixes, have the same "that sound" regardless of format!

OK, so maybe it's the consoles? I mean it would make sense... EVERYTHING runs through the console every which way, and a lot of times, multiple times! Funny thing is that I don't usually consider Otari or SSL consoles one of the best options out there, but maybe the most common for label productions? Well, the SSL is for sure! It would also make sense because I find a lot of studios I've been in, running Mackie or less than reasonably ideal consoles, simply don't have "that sound". The ones that do are running Neve and API pres and A LOT of top-notch outboard dynamic gear which ALWAYS included at least one LA2A and two 1176s!

I guess, that brings us to whether it may also have to do with all the previousy mentioned and a bunch of other top-notch compressors/limiters... Damn hard for me to decide... My instict tells me THAT'S where most of it's coming from as I remember being floored the first time I heard an LA2A and 1176! I remember thinking: So THAT'S how they get "that sound"! Then, when you have Neve and API pres as well, you have a collage of colors that just won't quite!

But with that said, ah be damned if those tracking session monitor mixes I've heard (which NEVER touched ANY of those pres or compressors/limiters) didn't have "that sound"!!!

I suppose it should also be mentioned that when you get-up into that Dion, Houston, Carey, Streisand, Twain, or what have you stuff, the whole chain starts with what will determine what comes out of the end, the microphone... As it's only as good as what goes in... More than likely, the mic going to be a Stephen Paul Audio something or other condenser...

So there you have it! I was doing nothing but brainstorming, so I guess take it for what it is...
 
Roker1 said:
chessrock, you made it sound as if the players and singers were it!! the secret to great sounding mixes!!??
Click to expand...

Sort of. I believe it's a combination of that and the instruments they're playing. Have you ever recorded a real drummer before with a real kit with real heads that have been changed recently, properly tuned and played with impecable technique?

It's a real ear-opener.

Suddenly, you realize you don't need expensive compressors because all of his hits are even. You don't need a lot of skills with EQ because his heads and the way he hits them already have the proper attack, balance of highs and lows, etc.

And I've always thought the secret to better bass guitar was in using better strings and better pickups. Those two things alone will get you WAAAY closer towards "that sound" than pluggin in to a Countryman or an Avalon U5.

Hell, I'll give you another tip: try playing about 3/4 of the way towards the bottom pickup. That will add a ton of polish to your sound right there.

Accoustic guitar - a little trickier, but again, better guitars always sound better, and better pickers always sound brighter, fuller, more balanced, punchier, easier on the ears, etc.

And a vocalist who understands how to work a microphone is worth his/her weight in gold. Doesn't necessarily even have to be incredibly skilled . . . just needs to know how to "work" the mic. Makes life much easier on your compressor and de-esser.

I think the magic Recording Engineer was hearing at this studio was probably real, seasoned, professional studio musicians playing real instruments. It's not unlike hearing a really good band warming up in a small venue -- I've heard some bands get "that sound" piping right in to the house mixer during sound check. :D
 
Closer!

Chessrock, you are too funny... :D I forgot that there is the potential difference between a $500 Nashville Tele and a $2500 souped up model going through the amps of the gods.

Recording Engineer - I can NOT thank you enough for your outpouring of brainstorm... uh... stuff. ;) You shed a fresh light on the subject for me - I haven't had the opportunity to sit in on a truly professional tracking session and this helped give me an idea of how the pros go about it.

QUOTE: "It was THAT good without ANY additional (nothing you wouldn't normally do) effort."

THAT is what I'm talking about. It has "that sound" without even fiddling with it. You shouldn't have to tweak it excessively to sound good; it should naturally have that. That is the missing link I'm trying day and night to decipher. It's something simple and undoubtedly expensive.

We're headed in the right direction. It CAN'T be the effects, though!! What about all those fantastic recordings that were done with a really acoustic, uncompressed quality? And the EQ can't be it either - you should be able to record without EQ and have it sound good. I've got the mics, the pres, killer A/D conversion......

So is it the stupid console??

Or is it tracking to analog first?

If the control room monitor mix sounds fabulous, then it might be because it's all analog. If they track it DIRECT to digital (NO tape) and suddenly it sounds lifeless, then it's not hitting the tape that's killing it. If it sounds good going pure digital, though, I remain curious and I'm back where I started. =)
 
But...

But chessrock... Why does Shania Twain's voice have that sound?

She's no Joan Diener, but her voice still has "that sound," nonetheless

I'm hunting for that solution that lets the bad sound good, you know? =)
 
My opinion is that it all boils down to 2 things - room acoustics and mic placement. This is assuming the instruments are creating the desired sound.
 
Track it the way you want it to sound!

THAT is the secret.

I work with people all the time that just don't actually KNOW what sounds good. :) Not getting "that sound" produced by the instrument, the mix placement, and to a lesser degree, the premap/other devices in the chain, means that later you will be tweeking it. Tweeking just isn't the same.

I have worked with consoles with high end eq. I have had the LA2A's and 1176's available. Really, the idea behind these things is to add "flavor" to what already sound good, OR, to simply fix a minor problem and stay out of the way of an already great sound.

Track it the way you want it to sound! THAT is the secret.

Your years of experience make the difference. Until you KNOW your monitors, your room, your gear, you will make mistakes. Every engineer and/or producer can talk hours about all the bad tones they have recorded in their career! I have my share of mixes I would never post on this bbs! :)

Only a couple of times in my life have I had unlimited time to track a full CD. Both were the cleanest productions I have ever done. But in both cases, MY inexperience contributed to sounds being recorded that could have been better. I have moved on. I have learned from them. Next time I have that kind of time to track, it WILL be better, but I will still probably make some mistakes then too. I am no Mutt Lange, but I can bet that at one time, Mutt Lange was not as happy with his productions as he is now! :)

Track it the way you want it to sound. Forget about having to have "X compressor" and "Y preamp and "Z mic". Like RE said, average gear can capture that magic!

Ahhhhhhhhhh...magic! Yes, there are session where the magic happens. A combination of the right song, the right player, the right instrument, and the right mic placement to make it all happen! This takes time to achieve sometimes. Often, the musican burns out on playing (especially if they are a pot smoker) before the right tone is created for the song. This is where having as much time as needed is really important. Once you have spent all that time to get "that sound", you still need a great performance to make it all happen. If the player is not "up to it", the great tone will not matter anymore.

Balancing between keeping the players at their "peak" and spending the time to capture the tones properly can be VERY hard.

Let's not forget VISION. Do you have vision in your productions? Mutt Lange does. He knows EXACTLY what he wants it to sound like, and can effectively articulate that to the musicians and tracking engineer. Now everybody is stiving to get "that sound".

I can go on and on. The bottom line is exactly what you stated in your initial post, that if you could get "that sound" right now, you probably wouldn't have the time to post on this bbs. :)

Good luck

Ed
 
I was just thinking about a part early on in mixerman's diary about how the drum tech came in and tuned the drums to sound really good, but when the drummer came in and played them, they sounded really bad.

I remember about 4 years ago, I was producing a band. I didn't feel they were ready to start tracking their CD, but they wanted to move ahead. I grudgenly went along with them.

The drummer had a really crappy Tama Rockstar kit. NO WAY I was going to track that POS!!! So we rented a pretty nice Yamaha Maple Custom. I remember spending HOURS tuning up the brand new heads on that kit. I got that puppy sounding GREAT in the room. Then the drummer came in. Oh shit. It just didn't have that tone anymore!!! The way he hit, made it sound almost as bad as his Tama kit. I almost regretted renting the Yamaha's. I moved mic's, changed the tuning a bit, nothing made a difference. The way he hit the drums was just all wrong (the way he it was to swing through the top of the head, meaning, he didn't lift his sticks very fast off the head...this creates a very dead, muted sound to the drums from the multiple hits the stick makes on the head which chokes the tone severely!). Anyway, the guy we rented the kit from, who happens to be one of my favorite local rock drummers, comes into the studio to see how things are going. He agreed (in the control room) that the drums sounded like kaka poopy. He goes out to the kit and plays it. It was like I changed mic positions and mics!!! All of a sudden, with this guy playing the set, it sounded JUST LIKE I WANTED IT TO!!! Yes, I would have tweeked the mic placement and drum tuning for this dude, and obviously adjusted the preamp gains (this guy is a very consistent hitter...the drummer I was tracking wasn't...). But, the kit just sounded fabulous! I even tracked a bit of it to let him hear. When he came back into the control room, he though I eq'ed the drums or something because they sounded so much better. The guitar player confirmed that I hadn't touched a thing.

That night, after the first drum session, I put the ol' ADAT's in record and went into the tracking room and started beating on the drums. Came back and listened. Again, the sound I was after was their aside from a few tweeks to get it "just right". The next day though, the drummer would play and manage to make the kit sound like it was cardboard boxes with some garbage can lids for cymbals. Sigh.....................

I can remember too many times in the past where the guitar tones weren't "just right". So I head on in and start playing around with their gear (me playing the guitar...yes, ol' sonusman plays a few instruments....:)). I would get the guitar tone "just right" and give the guitar back to the musician. What would usually happen in this case is that I would increase the midrange a bit, and lower the preamp gain, my two main weapons for creating "just right" guitar tones. What would follow is that it would become VERY obvious that the guitar player was quite sloppy! That lowered gain and increased midrange would mean EVERY NUANCE to his playing would be heard. Most guitar players are not nearly good enough to play with such a tone. If they were, they would already be getting that type of tone and I would be fessing with their stuff to get it. So, no matter how good I get their tone, it is toast because the player will not be able to do a good take.

Bass players!!! Crap. don't get me started!!! I usually HAVE to butcher out a lot of low end on their tones because most of them cannot pluck the string with any consistency. These types of players require LOTS of compression and eq to get any even somewhat decent tone in the mix. But with players that pluck well, I usually don't have to do anything to their sound. I turn it up and it is rich, full, articulate.

The players ability to make the "magic" is the most important aspect in good production. With the musician producing a killer take, no amount of engineering tricks is going to make up for that.

You use Shania Twain as an example!!! Geez....she only has the best country studio musicians in the world playing on her CD, in some of the best recording studios in the world! Get yourself musicians that good and I am sure your own productions can start to at least rival that kind of sound.

Just some ramblings....

Ed
 
I'm not sure anyone has mentioned this, but a lot of the magic in recordings is in the ambience, both natural and added.

It's always going to be hard to get the same sound of a string quartet recorded in Carnegie Hall as the same group with the same mics, pres, etc. recorded in your bedroom.

But even aside from natural acoustics, a lot of the Shania (or any other pop diva) magic is in the added ambience. Let's face it, most of us don't have high end Lexicons, TC's, or Quantec room simulators. And certainly not any real plates or chambers. And some that do, don't necessarily know how to use them to the best advantage. That airy glistening ambience is sometimes a function of stacking up three or four different reverb/fx units, each adding a different subtle component. Take all the ambience off of Shania's voice and see how impressive you still think she sounds.
 
Sonusman pretty much nailed it! I recorded myself playing bass to a song that someone else wrote and at the time it sounded okay. Keep in mind I had nothing to reference it to since I am not a skilled bass player. I had a bass player friend over one day and for kicks I asked him to check out the song and play what I played. It took him all of 2 seconds to figure out what my bass lines were and he played it with a certain conviction that all of the sudden made me hear how "bad" my playing was and how it affected the overall sound of the recording in a negative sense. He pretty much played the same part with the same bass but his skill level made the part and the song sing! The rest of the players for the project were not as skilled on their instruments as this bass player was on his and the end result in the mix was that the bass was the best sounding instrument in the entire mix. Tone and all!

RF
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with you Sonusman. I am a musician first and have no skills whatsoever as a recording engineer. When I started recording stuff at home, playing every instruments on the song, I noticed that some sounded good, but others really crappy. (not an obvious musical problem such as off-key or off-beat) I blamed it on my recording technique (or lack thereof). However, with time, I can say that I am still as incompetent as a sound engineer, but I became a better musician. My dissatisfaction with the sound I was getting forced me to work on my instrumental technique to compensate the lack of recording equipment and skills...and it worked, although I am still not 100% satisfied with the sound I am getting, it definitely got better.
 
So True. I've noticed something in doing some jam sessions with the same setup, mic placement and gear time after time. It's obvious to my ears whether or not I spent time tuning and tweaking the instruments and tones, whether or not I actually remember doing so. ;) My friends always get pissed off when I roam around the room tweaking everything! This has inspired me to have loads of different drum heads, strings, and other instruments at hand when taking a creative idea head on.
 
I had the luxury of working MANY years of live sound before I got into studio work seriously. I have mixed everything from the highschool kids who can't tune properly and/or play in time to grammy award winning artists. I have mixed in shithole coffee house to 30,000 people festivals.

What this did was let me hear how bands actually SOUND. Let me tell you right now, in live sound, you REALLY rely on the artist to help your mix! How well they play and how good their tone is, and how that tone and playing relate to the other musicians is crucial in making the live mix work. The musicians ability to adapt to the acoustical environment tells me how well the mix will be. I can usually tell while the band is setting up how well the mix is going to be.

Not so good acts thow their gear up on stage, plug in and turn up and go. They spend NO time optimizing their sound for the venue. More times than not, these bands dont' sound very good.

Decent acts at least make an attempt to change their tone somewhat for the venue. These bands, provided they are too terribly loud can sound at least okay.

The grammy type of acts go all way though! These are cats that will adjust tone and their playing volume, sometimes severely to make it happen in the venue. I can ask them to do just about ANYTHING to improve the sound, and they will confidently do it and play an exciting show. These acts are true gems to work with. These are acts that put great sound first and have the talent to play their material flawlessly at any volume and with any tone. They also have the brains enough to trust a good engineer when they need something different than what they are supplying them for sound to make it all work. These types of acts don't spend too much time asking "why?" when I say "the bass is too bassy for the room". The bass player will just go and turn down the bass. Usually, the bass player already KNOWS that it is too bassy.

The point I am getting at is this:

In the studio, an act HAS to create the right kind of sound for their material. No amount of engineering can overcome the fact that the instrument doesn't sound right on it's own.

An example: A certain band I work for, te drummer has this sort of pingy "piccolo" snare sound. He loves it, and so does the band. So, that sound get's recorded to tape (always against my better judgement....). At mix time, the guitar player/producer guy in the band is always trying to warp the snare tone to sound more beefy and rich. The snare usually just ends up sounding like it has been heavily processed and lacks any kind of "real" sound to it. 2 reverbs, heavy compresssion and eq, and some distortion later, we wind up with a snare that sort of sounds like what I wanted in the first place, but all that processing sounds like processing. The plain fact is that the right sound wasn't recorded in the first place, and modifying the original sound doesn't sound very real anymore. In the end, it would have been much quicker and better for the overall sound to spend the time to get the sound right on the snare itself.

But wait, the drummer and the band LOVE that pingy snare sound! What gives? Why not just keep it in the mix? That is always what I ask!!! "It doesnt' sound heavy enough", "It lacks beef". Blah blah blah...They say all the shit I said while we were tracking it, but they don't listen to me during tracking. :)

Great sounding recordings are CRAFTED. To achieve a great sound takes a LOT of attention, dedication by everybody involved, and time to get it. Once you find what is working while micing, you make a note of EVERY setting on EVERYTHING so you can get back to that sound if need be later. You hear about second engineers making notes of everything, now you know why. Later, the guitar tone might be just a "bit off". With those notes, you can at least get back to something close to that tone, then modify from their. Retracking is usually what is going to happen if the tone isn't right later on in production. I have had to do it, and love it when I have that luxury. Using processing to "fix" the tone isn't going usually work. I usually use processing for the "effect" it supplies in well tracked material.

Anyway, it really comes down to having a vision about the sound. You either have the right vision or you don't. You know how you can tell if you have the right vision or not? Simple, turn up the faders and see how the mix sounds. No eq. No compression. No reverb. How does the "push mix" sound? Muddy and undefined? Lacking clarity and detail? Too shrill? Oops. You had the wrong vision. :) You are going to have a hell of a time mixing. Did it rock? Did it have punch and clarity? Is it warm and fuzzy? Good job! You had the right vision! Mixing will be a joy for you!

I love the type of mix where I am sweating the decision to compress something with about 3dB of gain reduction or not! Or where I am sweating whether a low cut eq should be turned down 2 or 4 dB. Or where a slight delay is cool on the vocal or not (when you can actually HEAR that short delay). These tiny tweeks are more about "flavor" than anything else. The mix already sound killer.

But when I spend all my time gating the hell out of drums, and doing 12dB of gain reduction over the vocal, and carving out 3 frequency points on a bass guitar, and fighting the guitars to sit cleanly in the mix, that sucks. It makes for a long tiring day, and those mixes usually don't sound all that hot the next day. Nor will they ever sound all that hot. Little tweeks should FIX A PROBLEM WITHOUT CREATING OTHER PROBLEMS!

Anyway...just more ramblings....:)

Ed
 
A lot of the stuff people have said on this thread would REALLY make a BAND sound good. Emphasis on " Band".

The original post cited Shania Twain. In that case it has very little to do with how much skill musicians may or may not have, its about getting the music the HELL out of the way of her vocals. The trick in this case is to use the absolute MINUMUM of space on instruments. The LEAST possible sonic area you can possibly get away with per music. The music is to NOT be heard, but to be made aware of, its a backdrop. You could very easily get an equal or better drum sound than on this new " techno shania " stuff by tapping your fingers on a cardboard box, but thats not the point
 
with my "limited...ahem" experience working in prof. studios with good equipment (pre digital days) and now as primarily a home recordist, I feel that the equipment of today has narrowed the differences between the "shania" sound and the "homemade" sound. But, I still feel there is a definate difference running thru a decent console and quality outboard gear. The soundcraft ghost narrows the gap pretty well, as well as some of the digital boards like the d8b, but I still feel even smaller boards like Harrisons, Tridents, even the MCI still have a noticeable difference over the boards you can order in the catalogs. Also...just plugging into a LA2A, but not having the needle bouncing all over seems to do "something" too....same with the 1176. I have not heard the new generations of these pieces (the 1176 or the purples), but it seems that those 'vintage items' also add that "slight" difference. Also, then possible the same with the mics. I feel mics like akg451's do a much better job[for sd condensors] for reasons like better off axis response, and smoother response curves, even though they may be exaggerated in areas....than something like the Marshall 603's. However, as mentioned earlier, I believe the gap has narrowed equipment wise in leaps and bounds with the new stuff coming out.

As mentioned...the VISION is the key word, and hearing what sounds GOOD as you move along thru the tracking. Having to constantly fiddle and tweak only makes things much harder in the end. I feel tracks that "mix themselves" are the ONES that get you there. If you gotta add 10dB of high end EQ to the overheads to get the cymbals to "shimmer", you fucked up in the tracking stage.

all in all, I have come to believe that the home recordings can come CLOSE but no cigar...but enough to make ME happy at this point...and enough to fool many listeners too. I can dismiss room sound to a degree also, with things being closed mic'd so much, and the quality of reverbs nowadays too. I've heard some natural chambers that actually just sounded like shit, imo. I even feel the plates got surpassed by the Lexicon line, long ago.

The Shania sound..... great players that make great tracks and all the above thoughts mentioned too...

someone said...take away the verb on her voice. It WOULD be an eyeopener... same with the makeup probably too! (well...maybe) But, and eyeopener that her voice has that "something" to it that by just adding some smaltzy reverb to it, makes it come alive. But also that it sounds amazingly stark naked.... much like I'd like to see her!!
 
Sooooooo....

So this is the issue apparently...

A) If the instrument (guitar, amp, drums, etc.) does not have 'that sound', don't expect to be able to tweak it into having 'that sound'. Tweaking is only to make it sound BETTER, not to make it have 'that sound'. OK. That would make sense as to why Recording Engineer said he's heard 'that sound' without tweaking. (Even the simple control mixes had it!) However, I've also noticed that if I only record ONE track and don't mix it in with anything else, it sounds a HELL of a lot like "that sound". Slightly short of it, but close. If you listen to the a capella tracks of some major label artists, the naked vocal doesn't sound fantastic, in fact it sounds almost exactly like they 'recorded it at home'. The reverbs they use make it sound really glossy and professional, and that's why it seems hard to even attain that much... Which brings me to -

B) Maybe some of us ARE achieving 'that sound' in our recordings. However, when we don't mix through a fantastic console that is sophisticated enough to maintain 'that sound' through the mixing process, it ruins it. It degrades it (or preserves, it in the case of digital, maybe?) in a a way that is unacceptable to the human ear - that little thing that makes you cringe when you hear your mixes and they just don't sound right. The individual tracks sound OK, but not the mix.

Nashville's top label mixes have always intrigued me because they've ALL got 'that sound', even when most of the mix is acoustic. 99% of the Nashville cats also use Pro Tools, so it's not the audio hitting the digital domain that's killing the sound, right? (To those of you who despise country music, slap on a set of headphones and just listen to the mix from a producer's standpoint. It's an eye-opener!) They take the lead vocals, compress them, EQ them, AutoTune the living crud out of them, and even THEN a not-so-good singer can sound good. (And a great singer can sound unbelievable!!)

You know what would really make my day?? If I could get a CD with ALL the individually recorded tracks for just one of Shania's tunes and see just where 'that sound' comes from. Would anyone be so kind......?

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top