Amy Winehouse's cd.....nasty

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I don't understand where the idea came from that over-distorting, over compressing and/or over-filtering something is "old-school" or "60s- or 70s sounding". Being a boomer, I regularly listen to the stuff of my childhood and tenn years, and I gotta tell ya, the decisive majority of it is much higher fidelity than anthing that tries sounding "retro" today. Except for some typical tape loss above 9-10k, and perhaps some lesser dynamics - usually really noticable only on classical sides - most of it sounds just as good as today stuff that doesn't try to sound retro.

The ironic thing is that it seems the worst-souding recordings from back then tend to be from the "bigger name" artists. By that I mean I have a LOT of one-hit-wonders and B-list bands in my collection, and those tend to as a percentage of the whole be the overall best-sounding recordings in the bunch, fidelity-wise.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Not always, but pretty often in order to help increase the signal to noise ratio of tape (and increase the natural compression effects of tape) the motto was "if you're not in the red, your dead", at least that's what I was told in the studio. With a limited number of tracks, the originals were often bounced down to another machine and then tracks added, creating another form of "filtering". Also most 60's R&B records were recorded on tube consoles and outboard gear often being pushed most likely for effect, again adding harmonic distortion, and natural compression.

Another thing to consider was that music had to be mastered to vinyl which created other limitations (less bass, less high end, overall levels couldn't be as hot as CD).

Here's a good thread from PSW that discusses some of the aspects of 60's/70's recording:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/3907/0/0/4063/

As Glen said there were great sounding records and bad records. Usually the good survives and we tend to remember them the most.

 

[legionserial]

She won like multiple grammys for that album.

That's because the tunes are pretty good. The average joe non-engineer/recordist type doesn't really care about what we're talking about here, and probably can't hear it anyway. Half the people I know have their hifi's EQ'd in such away that they can't hear much of anything to analyse it by.

 

[genesisariana]

That's because the tunes are pretty good. The average joe non-engineer/recordist type doesn't really care about what we're talking about here, and probably can't hear it anyway. Half the people I know have their hifi's EQ'd in such away that they can't hear much of anything to analyse it by.

"yeah it sounds so good overcompressed on my ipod with $3.00 headphones, and she is so hot too, thats why i downloaded the cd."...Mr. Average Joe.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Not always, but pretty often in order to help increase the signal to noise ratio of tape (and increase the natural compression effects of tape) the motto was "if you're not in the red, your dead", at least that's what I was told in the studio. With a limited number of tracks, the originals were often bounced down to another machine and then tracks added, creating another form of "filtering". Also most 60's R&B records were recorded on tube consoles and outboard gear often being pushed most likely for effect, again adding harmonic distortion, and natural compression.

Tom is right in how we might define a "60s" vibe as being an artifact of the analog gear and how it it was used or abused. (And also in the fact that the drugs were different back then )

But it's not like that gear or the engineers that used it don't exist any more. If a Big Boy Artist truely wanted that vinatge analog sound, they'd work off of old consoles and 2" Studers, and hire someone like Bruce Swedien (I never know how to spell his name ) and do it organically. But they usually don't; just as often you find them on digital SSLs into Pro Tools with Randy Jackson or Rick Rubin piloting the production, and throwing a bunch of artifical flavoring into the pot.

They are rarely actually going for a 60's sound, IMHO; that's just an easy, erroneous way to try to describe it. What they are really doing, IMHO, is searching for something "new". Which is fantastic; I am all for looking for original sound nad not just cookie-cutter production. Unfortunately, it naturally comes as part of the territory than when trying out new recipies that they are not all going work out that well; there are going to be more dogs than success along the way.

But I think there's an additional factor; generational identity and angst. There's a lot of fans who like that grungy (I don't mean musical genre, I mean grungy in the traditional sense) sound exactly because it doesn't sound like it's "supposed to". It's angry, it's rebellious, and it's not your father's Oldsmobile; it's something a person in the main demographic can hang their own hat on. Even if it does sound like crap.

Bottom line, though, IMHO, is that Legionserial is right; if the material or performance are great, they can be recorded with soup cans and kite string and it'll still be a great song or performance, and people will still listen to it. If less people worried about trying to find a "sound" and more concentrated on songwriting, arranging and performance, we'd all be pretty happy.

G.

 

[floppsybunny]

i think it's actually one of my favourite masters of the last few years, amy winehouse's back to black. it's hard-limited, distorted, and loud, but the edge of saturation on her voice sounds really smooth, and nice big and bright eq spreads.

60s music has dynamics? maybe a lot of it, certainly not 'be my baby' or anything 'wall of sound'. maybe those old recordings have a bit more dynamic simply because digital hard limiting wasn't really an option in 1963...

 

[1tonio]

I saw on some TV show a while back-a little after Amy's I an't drinkin no more(or whatever its called) tune came out.
If I rememebr correctly, it was stated that the tune(s) or band was meant for some lady that was somewhat obese and "not tv oriented" material and her band. I think some of the band members are still behind Amy.
did I remember this right, or is the context mistaken?
T

That's because the tunes are pretty good. The average joe non-engineer/recordist type doesn't really care about what we're talking about here, and probably can't hear it anyway. Half the people I know have their hifi's EQ'd in such away that they can't hear much of anything to analyse it by.

 

[noisewreck]

So how would one get these types of sounds intentionally, without sounding like junk?

More specifically, I'd like to be able to get a sound like...a 30's jazz 78...

Well for 30's jazz first of all you'd completely bypass a mixing console because all you'd need is a single microphone. You'd need to carefully setup the seating arrangement of the musicians so you'd sort of "mix" by their position and proximity to the mic...

Even before you get to that, you'd need to rehearse enough so the entire band knows how to mix itself through their performance dynamics.

The rest would be down to careful selection of the said mic and pre, and record to tape.

I highly doubt you'd compress, EQ and limit to hell.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You'd need to carefully setup the seating arrangement of the musicians so you'd sort of "mix" by their position and proximity to the mic...

There's a story about when it came time to record Louis Armstrong, they just could not get the levels right until they put Louis out in the hallway and kept everybody else in the room, because he played just so damn loud.

Even before you get to that, you'd need to rehearse enough so the entire band knows how to mix itself through their performance dynamics.

Or hire Duke Ellington to conduct

And they'd have to be good enough to make it through the entire performance in one take, because in the 30s they recorded direct to disc - which itslef is a big part of the "sound", BTW - no comps, no overdubs, not even any tape splicing/editing.

I highly doubt you'd compress, EQ and limit to hell.

No real signal processing back than other than maybe some simple bandpassing and limiting to fit the signal onto disc, but even then I think that far back that was as much mechanical dampeninng as anything.

G.

 

[MCI2424]

I don't understand where the idea came from that over-distorting, over compressing and/or over-filtering something is "old-school" or "60s- or 70s sounding". Being a boomer, I regularly listen to the stuff of my childhood and tenn years, and I gotta tell ya, the decisive majority of it is much higher fidelity than anthing that tries sounding "retro" today. Except for some typical tape loss above 9-10k, and perhaps some lesser dynamics - usually really noticable only on classical sides - most of it sounds just as good as today stuff that doesn't try to sound retro.

The ironic thing is that it seems the worst-souding recordings from back then tend to be from the "bigger name" artists. By that I mean I have a LOT of one-hit-wonders and B-list bands in my collection, and those tend to as a percentage of the whole be the overall best-sounding recordings in the bunch, fidelity-wise.

G.

The digital recording stuff is the problem. If everyone were to go back to analog, the music would be perfect. I like to refer to analog as "warm, fuzzy, hot-chocolate-on-a-cold-snowy-morning" kind of sound. Digital is just so "cold, harsh, sledgehammer, pounding air-hammer" kind of sound.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The digital recording stuff is the problem. If everyone were to go back to analog, the music would be perfect. I like to refer to analog as "warm, fuzzy, hot-chocolate-on-a-cold-snowy-morning" kind of sound. Digital is just so "cold, harsh, sledgehammer, pounding air-hammer" kind of sound.

We're not talking about the sound of the technology here, we're talking about the *use* of the technology.

It's not digital's fault that since the early 90's people are putting out crap with a dynamic range of 20dB, or that they are bandpassing only the midrange in an attempt to "recreate" a sound that never existed to begin with.

Give these people nothing but analog gear and they'd still be mutilating the sound. They'd just be abusing analog compressors, EQs, limiters and recording media to do it instead of digital plugs. In fact on the Amy Winehead level, they probably *are* using mostly analog gear.

G.

 

[Daisy]

I think he was just messin' around, SS.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think he was just messin' around, SS.

Could be. Sorry if I missed the satire. I can't always tell with some of those analog guys; while I don't disagree with a lot of what they have to say, they can get get a bit zealous about it at times.

G.

 

[RAMI]

I can't always tell with some of those analog guys

Who lets them in HERE, anyway? That's what I want to know????

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Who lets them in HERE, anyway? That's what I want to know????

There's no A/D converter at the entrance to this forum.

Which is apparently a good thing, because if there were, every post would seem very cold and harsh, as if chiseled into the computer with a jackhammer. There certainly wouldnt be any warm and fuzzy threads like the "Thank You HR" thread, it would wind up being converted into another "This BBS is Just OK" thread...and we all remember how much fun that thread was .

(Now this IS satire, folks. . No need for the Nomex gloves )

G.

 

[jmorris]

The digital recording stuff is the problem. If everyone were to go back to analog, the music would be perfect. I like to refer to analog as "warm, fuzzy, hot-chocolate-on-a-cold-snowy-morning" kind of sound. Digital is just so "cold, harsh, sledgehammer, pounding air-hammer" kind of sound.

A total garbage statement.Digital is cold...shit, you dont know what you are doing then.I get very tired of that statement,cookie cutter statement.

 

[Daisy]

I've always felt that comparing analog to digital ... is a lot like comparing Northern dual-ply bathroom tissue with raw sandpaper.

 

[jmorris]

I've always felt that comparing analog to digital ... is a lot like comparing Northern dual-ply bathroom tissue with raw sandpaper.

Again, that is one of the most abused statements in the last 10 years. First, if you really believe that then you're not really listening. Analog/digital can/do/have the ability to sound any way you want it to. It's like people that say" you have to run digital signal real hot". Yeah maybe first gen protools but not today with 24 bit. Just generic statements. Digital can sound very warm and organic. Analog can sound distorted and harsh. It totally depends on the engineer and the gear and it's usage.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

And I thought *I* was the one who overdosed on the seriousness pills in this thread

JM, I'm almost sure Daisy WAS just joking around.

And even if he wasn't, you can just turn it inside-out it by stating the obvious interpretation: that digital is good for finishing/polishing organic artistic craft work, whereas analog is good for wiping one's ass .

Has this thread gotten officialy off-topic yet?



G.

 

[jmorris]

Glen, I did not turn his statement inside out( at least I didnt think I did) it's just that you can not make a blanket statement about this subject like ( digital is cold and harsh and analog is warm). And degree of difference between the two that is being offered is crazy.It just isnt true. Can digital be harsh, sure, but so can alalog. It depends on the engineer, the gear, the room, mic's, skill, mixing, mastering etc.If a guy cannot get a nice warm organic sound out of his DAW then he's doing something wrong. I posted a link a while back somewhere here of a comparison between 2" analog and all of the popular digital formats. Protools, Nuendo and radar compared to 2" analog. The deal took place in a studio in London. RADAR won.. by blind comparison. Only point to this is you can get want ever you want out of the gear of you have ther skill and ther ears.