Reproducing that 80s sound

johndotpizza

New member
I'm working on a video project where I'd like to reproduce the sound of 80s movies and tv. There's a certain warmth and resonance in that old material that I can't seem to reproduce, despite my hours of applying different effects, equalizing, compressing, and trying many plugins.

A good example of what I'm talking about is the Knight Rider intro (I'm not allowed to post links, just YouTube "Knight Rider intro", first result). The dialogue has a very colorful sound to it. Although Knight Rider is an extreme example, everything produced back that seemed to have that quality, to an extent. When I listen to the audio in movies like Ferris Bueller and The Breakfast Club I hear a similar warmth and depth that modern productions don't have.

Though I'm sure this boils down to the source material being recorded and mastered on tape, analog compression, and etc., there has to be a way to recreate it digitally.

I hope someone can shed some light on this for me!
 
In rather have to disagree. Source material from that era was analogue and digital, and my firm view is that we just mixed differently. I've no idea what you mean by warmth and resonance. It doesn't ring bells with me at all. The transition from 70s to 80s really just widened frequency response and increased dynamic range. Frequency response curves were gentle and favoured the smiley face. Sub bass was reserved for the movies. We had synths for the first time that sounded better than they had done just a few years back. The first thing I'd do is replicate what was possible. Eq certainly, but compression was reserved for heavy rock and punchy vocals. I really think you need to go back to basic sound sources, apply quite gentle and bland eq, reserve compression for the things that need it badly and be gentle. In the past year or so I've done 60s and 79s music that's realistic with all digital production and it's fine. Look at 80s loudspeakers and go back to basics. Reverbs were different and the first electronic ones were surfacing. You need to copy how they recorded and not try to do a 2019 recording and then dirty it up. They were trying to be clean and open.
 
In rather have to disagree. Source material from that era was analogue and digital, and my firm view is that we just mixed differently. I've no idea what you mean by warmth and resonance. It doesn't ring bells with me at all. The transition from 70s to 80s really just widened frequency response and increased dynamic range. Frequency response curves were gentle and favoured the smiley face. Sub bass was reserved for the movies. We had synths for the first time that sounded better than they had done just a few years back. The first thing I'd do is replicate what was possible. Eq certainly, but compression was reserved for heavy rock and punchy vocals. I really think you need to go back to basic sound sources, apply quite gentle and bland eq, reserve compression for the things that need it badly and be gentle. In the past year or so I've done 60s and 79s music that's realistic with all digital production and it's fine. Look at 80s loudspeakers and go back to basics. Reverbs were different and the first electronic ones were surfacing. You need to copy how they recorded and not try to do a 2019 recording and then dirty it up. They were trying to be clean and open.

Did you take a listen to the Knight Rider intro I referenced? There's nothing clean about that voice to my ears. It sounds really cool, but I wouldn't call it clean. Audio in movies now is what I would describe as clean. It has a lot of dynamic range but it feels bland and flat compared to the old stuff because it has no texture. It's almost too perfect.

I should specify that this project is a film project. Not music specific. I want my dialogue to have a similar sound to that Knight Rider guy.
 
I think if you want the "Knight Rider" sound, first you need Richard Basehart's voice. The "dirt" came from Basehart's somewhat gravelly voice. Then drop out all the highs and deep lows because it was going to be played through a 3 or 4 inch TV speaker which couldn't handle "full range". I suspect you will need a fair amount of compression because you want all the dialogue to be easily heard. Ride gain on the background music to lesson the interference.

In the 70s and early 80s most people didn't have stereo on their TVs, much less surround sound systems. TV sound was more akin to a table radio than a stereo, although that started to change as VCRs became common. They had true audio outputs which could be easily hooked to a stereo.

As for movie audio having no texture, I REALLY don't understand what you are talking about here. Movies today have soundtracks that are VERY high quality since they expect to be played over THX or Dolby digital surround sound system.
 
As for movie audio having no texture, I REALLY don't understand what you are talking about here. Movies today have soundtracks that are VERY high quality since they expect to be played over THX or Dolby digital surround sound system.

I agree! It's very clear and clean, unlike the audio from older films which had a certain "texture" to them that was introduced by the imperfections of the recording media.
 
Imperfections in the recording media? You're using descriptive words in a context we simply don't recognise. My mixes from the 70s sound old, my mixes from the 90s sound somehow richer and my contemporary mixes sound to my old ears more natural. Just the sound of the times and nothing to do with the technology. This is proven to my satisfaction by the inability to tell recording dates from some kinds of music that has not changed over the years. 1970/80s big band recordings as a good one. Once they sorted out the proper stereo field for accuracy to the real layout, the popular bands can swap eras one one album and not have people talking about recording differences at all. Same with classical. Popular music, and movie music is a created product. It's manufactured to fit specifics. Stick a few tracks auto an analyser and look at how it's been squashed and band limited. Stop all this talk about 'texture' and use technical terms that have the same meaning to everyone. The hifi brigade do this all the time and everyone laughs at their daft use of language that says so little. Sonic coherence, openness, truthfulness, depth, enhanced reality and so many other meaningless terms. We tend to use things that can be quantified. Dynamics, frequency response, noise, distortion, polarity, phase, and proper use of them! I think I understand what you mean by 'warmth' but no idea on 'resonance'. I would use the term to mean something bad, like there was a strange resonance at 550Hz, probably cause by the panel behind the mixing desk vibrating?
 
Imperfections in the recording media? You're using descriptive words in a context we simply don't recognise. My mixes from the 70s sound old, my mixes from the 90s sound somehow richer and my contemporary mixes sound to my old ears more natural. Just the sound of the times and nothing to do with the technology. This is proven to my satisfaction by the inability to tell recording dates from some kinds of music that has not changed over the years. 1970/80s big band recordings as a good one. Once they sorted out the proper stereo field for accuracy to the real layout, the popular bands can swap eras one one album and not have people talking about recording differences at all. Same with classical. Popular music, and movie music is a created product. It's manufactured to fit specifics. Stick a few tracks auto an analyser and look at how it's been squashed and band limited. Stop all this talk about 'texture' and use technical terms that have the same meaning to everyone. The hifi brigade do this all the time and everyone laughs at their daft use of language that says so little. Sonic coherence, openness, truthfulness, depth, enhanced reality and so many other meaningless terms. We tend to use things that can be quantified. Dynamics, frequency response, noise, distortion, polarity, phase, and proper use of them! I think I understand what you mean by 'warmth' but no idea on 'resonance'. I would use the term to mean something bad, like there was a strange resonance at 550Hz, probably cause by the panel behind the mixing desk vibrating?

I apologize for using the wrong terminology. I don't know much about audio, just trying to figure something out for a video project.

It appears I've come to the wrong forum. Sorry for wasting your time.
 
johndotpizza......you don't know much about audio but yet you seem to be sure that the "sound" you're looking for was specifically created by analog tape and a sort of diminished quality to the technology back then. I'm going to guess here....but I'll bet you've read on line that tape and other analog components created a "warm" sound as opposed to digital. And....there are plenty of people who will agree with that overall view. Essentially......though......there are many elements that go into the final sound of course......far too many to mention.

You might want to rethink that analog "warmth" vs digital "clean" thing. It certainly exists...to some extent.....but may not be the cause and cure of your dilemma. And yes.....you're certainly in the right spot here.
 
johndotpizza......you don't know much about audio but yet you seem to be sure that the "sound" you're looking for was specifically created by analog tape and a sort of diminished quality to the technology back then. I'm going to guess here....but I'll bet you've read on line that tape and other analog components created a "warm" sound as opposed to digital. And....there are plenty of people who will agree with that overall view. Essentially......though......there are many elements that go into the final sound of course......far too many to mention.

You might want to rethink that analog "warmth" vs digital "clean" thing. It certainly exists...to some extent.....but may not be the cause and cure of your dilemma. And yes.....you're certainly in the right spot here.

All I really know is what I've heard. I haven't studied much, but I do listen, and I can hear a very clear difference between films produced in the 80s and films produced now. I don't know how to describe it without upsetting people but it's very obvious to me.
 
johndotpizza........we get that for sure........and we understand that you're lack of experience (and terminology) will make the detective job for us a little more time consuming........but that's no big deal.......and we'll get the answers you need I think. So....to begin with....we'll need more examples of what you're hearing that sounds differently between then and now. If you need more posts to upload examples....then make more posts. An A and B example with specific questions or references to differences is best.

You're not upsetting anyone here. Just remember to keep an open mind about the cause and effect of the "sound" you want to achieve. The answer may not be what you think.
 
johndotpizza........we get that for sure........and we understand that you're lack of experience (and terminology) will make the detective job for us a little more time consuming........but that's no big deal.......and we'll get the answers you need I think. So....to begin with....we'll need more examples of what you're hearing that sounds differently between then and now. If you need more posts to upload examples....then make more posts. An A and B example with specific questions or references to differences is best.

You're not upsetting anyone here. Just remember to keep an open mind about the cause and effect of the "sound" you want to achieve. The answer may not be what you think.

I appreciate your willingness to help.

Another good example I can offer is the opening to The Breakfast Club. The monologue given by Brian's character has the quality I'm referring to, though to an extreme degree. The entire movie possesses this quality but not to the extent exhibited in that intro. A major defining attribute of it, to my ears, is that the S's are very crushed and I think it has to do with compression. Ferris Bueller sounds the same. I'm listening to both via the Blu-ray copies I own but you can find the Breakfast Club intro on YouTube.
 
Watched the Night Rider intro. That brings back memories...

First off, it is a mono recording with very limited dynamic range. The spoken word is almost the 'telephone' effect with a guy that has a really deep voice. Maybe a bit of preamp gain (distortion).

I don't see a problem reproducing this sound. May be as simple as creating a mono mix and high pass/low pass filters as a start.

Post a few more. I believe you only need 10 posts to give links to your recording. We can surely help further hearing what it is you have already recorded.

And yes, you came to the right place. Just kind of desolate here lately, so many members don't respond immediately.

Cheers!
 
Another good example I can offer is the opening to The Breakfast Club. The monologue given by Brian's character has the quality I'm referring to, though to an extreme degree.

Dead dry narration recording...has some sort of gate or voiceover AGC thing going on, you can hear how the ambience of the spoken phrases is abruptly cut off.
It's also about the mic used to record that...?...and probably with him very close to the mic and speaking somewhat softly, which adds some of that air/grain to the sound.

Anyway...can you get that sound today...for sure. You just have to find the setup that can reproduce it. I mean, it's certainly not any analog vs digital thing, even if then they recorded it to analog tape. The tape rolled some things off, maybe added a touch of tape noise/hiss to the background...but those things can be recreated in the digital domain.

Also...as someone may have already mentioned...there were different production mindsets back then and now...so you kinda have to think about that when trying to achieve a period correct recording. I mean...it's not just the about the gear.
 
First off, it is a mono recording with very limited dynamic range. The spoken word is almost the 'telephone' effect with a guy that has a really deep voice. Maybe a bit of preamp gain (distortion).

I think the distortion is the part I'm having trouble with. I don't know how to add that element without it sounding terrible.
 
If you have plugins...find one that does "saturation" or maybe "tape"...and then see f you can add some "grain" to the track.
You don't have to go for *distortion* like you would with a guitar amp....you just want a touch.
 
Sounds like you’re hearing tape saturation. If your DAW or video software has a “saturation” or “overdrive” tool, try applying a little to the master and see if it gets you a bit closer to what you’re looking for.
 
Sounds like you’re hearing tape saturation. If your DAW or video software has a “saturation” or “overdrive” tool, try applying a little to the master and see if it gets you a bit closer to what you’re looking for.

I've actually tried multiple "saturation" plugins and effects and it just ends up sounding like bad distortion. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but even in small doses it didn't sound like it was getting me any closer to my goal.
 
Johndotpizza,

I might disagree with you on the soundtrack of films from the 80s as being drastically different or inferior. Many films for the 70s and 80s are just as clean and clear as those today. I'm referring to movies like the Godfather and Godfather 2, StarWars, Return of the Jedi, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Amadeus. All have wonderful soundtracks.

This is different from 80s TV shows where soundtracks will be more limited in scope, bandwidth and dynamic range.

You might have better luck by picking out several examples that have the character you desire, and then research who did the recording if possible (and where). Many producers will have their own distinctive style. It would be like trying to generalize rock music when you have guys like Phil Spector, George Martin, Mutt Lange, Quincy Jones and Trevor Horn. Each had a style or sound technique that is usually identifiable. There's no way to confuse a Quincy Jones production with a Mutt Lange or George Martin work. Can you imagine Phil Spector doing Pyromania?
 
Audio quality from the 60s onwards is surprisingly high, so I wonder if what you are experiencing is just the rather low if recording systems of the video recorders you may be hearing on re-recorded products from the day. Blu-ray is a good example, nice pictures but no guarantee where they got the audio. Have you got access to an old vhs or Betamax recorder? Run your pristine audio onto and back off one of those with auto level and narrower frequency response. Alan parsons first album is 43 soon, and is amazing quality still. You are doing the modern thing and looking for plugins, but you are finding extremes not subtlety. The studios produced night rider in probably excellent quality but what you are hearing is what happened to it after that date. You could be attempting to re-engineer the wrong thing. Perhaps you have a version of history in your head that isn't accurate? That's fine of course, artistically, but probably wrong reality wise. A bit like when people try to recreate the sound of things like the picadilly dance orchestras, with the thin and feeble sound of the old movies, only to discover they really didn't sound like that, and the producers have to either go with the wrong sound or the real one?
 
Y'all are making me feel like I'm crazy. I've watched countless 80s movies (despite not being around in that decade) because I generally prefer them over newer films. It's because they have certain attributes that make them more interesting to me and part of that is the unique sound of the audio. I certainly wouldn't call it inferior, just different in a way that is more appealing to me. No, I wasn't in the theater to watch the original run of any of these films, but I find it hard to believe that none of them were able to retain their original audio quality on the DVD, Blu-ray, and streaming copies I've viewed over the years. It's really not a drastic difference but it's enough to give it a different feeling.
 
Back
Top