At All Volumes

[Snowman999]

I've been a music fanatic since I was a child. A great song is great regardless of how loud you're listening to it. Of course Zeppelin and Sabbath sound better cranked till your ears bleed. But, if you play it at a normal or even low level, the music doesn't lose its drive or thrill.

That's something you should think about while mixing. I love my mixes when I crank them up. But, some songs lose something when I play them at lower volumes.

It's just something to think about while mixing.

 

[JimmyS1969]

I totally get that. I often wonder what the 'secret' is to getting there.

What I find is that it has more to do with the song/performance. Hell, Bohemian Rhapsody is kind of simple in the 16 tracks that were bounced to make it work. But it just works and the production is still viable to this day. That was what, 30 years ago?

So much of what we old school guys are used to hearing from recordings from Zep, Alice Cooper, hell even go into Triumph and Rush. There is something that seems magic because it sounds as awesome today as it did then.

What I see and hear more now than I like, is that artists want to sound 'modern'. That could be metal. That could be pop. Some like to approach with what they call a 'retro' approach.

My Approach:

The bands I have requesting time in my studio, I first ask what is your band wanting to sound like. Honest question.

'We want to sound like Godsmack'. I say, 'go somewhere else if you wish to sound like every other over produced commercial metal song'. I am not the guy for them.

I want a recording to be as the band sounds on their own. That is the first order...

 

[Snowman999]

I could be wrong (I am about so many things). The mixing part comes from, engineers have the speakers turned up enough that they can clearly hear all the parts for placement and volume. You put on headphones to check. Even in phones, there's a tendency to turn up the volume. But, I know I've never turned the stereo down to hear what it sounds like at low levels. A real record will sound exactly the same at low levels as it does cranked. Many home mixers (like myself) when you lower the volume, little things that you clearly hear at loud volume are gone. That's because the mix isn't perfect. I know I'll never create a perfect mix.

The other part about our generations music is, it was created by musicians who lived and breathed music. Now, people like me sit in a basement and record alone. I know I have no formal training. Many brilliant artists haven't. But, they had the drive and desire that you needed back then to succeed. Musicianship in younger people is second place to the recording aspect. Pushing buttons is easy. Pushing the right buttons is hard. There's still excellent music being produced. But, nowhere near the amount that was released from 30s - 90s. The 50s to 80s will never be beat.

 

[mjbphotos]

Low frequencies can 'disappear' at lower volumes - this is an effect of the human ear. Look up "Fletcher–Munson curves". In order to have your bass and kick parts still be audible at lower volumes, harmonics are needed. Digitally, too many people EQ out those higher frequencies (carving room for other things) so the parts literally disappear. One technique mentioned here for bass is to record the same part on a guitar (an octave up, of course). If you listen to those 60s mixes carefully, you will notice that the kick is almost inaudible until very high volumes - so turning the volume down doesn't really affect it.

 

[miroslav]

I often wonder what the 'secret' is to getting there.

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

I want a recording to be as the band sounds on their own. That is the first order...

You're answering your own question.

I don't think there's any real "secret"...as if it was some production or processing method that they had back then. If anything, what they had back then, would be considered pretty basic by the capabilities to manipulate and process sound in today's ITB world.

Maybe that's the real secret...they recorded pretty basic, and often as a band, playing live...with only minimal overdubs and not too much "fix it in the mix" stuff.
IOW, they weren't saving for later, for down the road. The energy, the feel, the sounds...they were all there up-front during the tracking sessions, and most of these guys knew that they had to get it then...which is why I think that music just seems to have the same drive and organic intensity even today, and at all levels.

I couldn't even begin to imagine Led Zeppelin or Sabbath working track-by-track, in a typical "modern"...ITB approach.

 

[Snowman999]

Low frequencies can 'disappear' at lower volumes - this is an effect of the human ear. Look up "Fletcher–Munson curves". In order to have your bass and kick parts still be audible at lower volumes, harmonics are needed. Digitally, too many people EQ out those higher frequencies (carving room for other things) so the parts literally disappear. One technique mentioned here for bass is to record the same part on a guitar (an octave up, of course). If you listen to those 60s mixes carefully, you will notice that the kick is almost inaudible until very high volumes - so turning the volume down doesn't really affect it.

It's funny, I have no problem with hearing kick and bass on my smallest speakers or headphones. I also have a trick (I know I didn't invent it. But, I didn't know anything about it till I was looking up mixing videos on youtube) to get a great sounding bass. I just duplicate the bass track, one I EQ out all the highs and get it real deep. The other I remove all the lows. Together they make a perfect bass.

miroslav: what they had back then, would be considered pretty basic by the capabilities to manipulate and process sound in today's ITB world.

That's absolutely correct. That's what makes modern music so sad.

Page actually overdubbed a lot. I think Ten Years Gone (my favorite song) he did 37 guitar parts.

Iommi says Sabbath's first album was recorded in one 12 hour session.

 

[mjbphotos]

It's funny, I have no problem with hearing kick and bass on my smallest speakers or headphones.

Small speakers can't reproduce low frequencies - you're hearing the harmonics, not the root notes. Headphone transducers work differently than speakers to reproduce low frequencies.

till I was looking up mixing videos on youtube) to get a great sounding bass. I just duplicate the bass track, one I EQ out all the highs and get it real deep. The other I remove all the lows. Together they make a perfect bass.

Think about it - you are not doing anything beyond boosting some frequencies (if any) and doubling the volume (until you EQ out the frequencies that are on both tracks).

 

[grimtraveller]

Page actually overdubbed a lot. I think Ten Years Gone (my favorite song) he did 37 guitar parts.

Yeah, Zeppelin recorded in a variety of different ways. "Kashmir" started off as just Page and Bonham. "The song remains the same" was something like 14 guitars. It was actually conceived as an instrumental before Robert Plant fitted some words and a melody to it. On the other hand, "In my time of dying" was a one take special with very little overdubbing. They didn't even have an ending worked out so what you hear on "Physical Graffiti" is how the song ended.

Iommi says Sabbath's first album was recorded in one 12 hour session.

We're often quite critical of the way albums are recorded nowadays but it really is the inevitable consequence of the ways of very people we venerate for having such wonderful ways of recording "back then."
I love the Sabs first album. I can't see a thing wrong with it, every one of the songs is priceless, yet they are full of moans about it. Geezer Butler rarely, if ever, got the bass sound he wanted from any engineer and he reckons they always fouled up his bass. Tony Iommi wanted to re~do much of the lead guitar on that first album but they didn't have any money or time left, hence them recording the album in a day. Many, many artists were like that. So as time went on and budgets increased, artists started taking longer and longer to make records. The importance of getting everything down quickly and effectively gradually took second place to the fact that engineering talent and daring could be more and more effectively employed and to cut a long story short, we have now. Drummers "aren't needed" because we have had machines since the 70s. In fact, producers like Mickie Most welcomed the machine and as we all know, if one person likes something, 10 can. And if 10 can......
But really, artistic demands and technological ability to fulfill the complaints of the day have basically got us to where we are now. It's "Animal Farm" writ large. We pigs are walking upright singing "four legs bad, two legs good !"

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I think a large part of why recordings sounded good at low volumes is because they checked them on small speakers. They generally accounted for the fact that their recordings would be heard on portable radios etc., so they made sure they would sound good even when band limited. Since listening at low levels has a similar effect, it benefitted from that part of their process. This ties into the comments above about having higher harmonics of LF sources so they didn't disappear when the playback had reduced LF response.

 

[PDP]

You're answering your own question.


The energy, the feel, the sounds...they were all there up-front during the tracking sessions, and most of these guys knew that they had to get it then.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Energy sounds loud. It gets your heart pounding. Those bands came off the road being very tight and knew how to just lay down great grooves.

 

[miroslav]

Page actually overdubbed a lot.

Yes...that's true, and with greater track counts on tape as wider formats and new machines came along...there was more room for that.
However...I still think those studio sessions were more about capturing the sounds in the studio.
Page wasn't tracking 37 guitar parts DI, so he could then sit a month later at his computer and reamp and apply endless plugins and sims to each of the 37 tracks to get the sounds he wanted.
It was mostly happening live, in the studio...whether it was with the whole band or just 1-2 members at a time...and the sounds had to be there at the front end for the most part...and so the playing was done with that "as-it-falls" approach....nothing was intentionally being left for someone to fix in the mix later.

 

[ecc83]

This makes a lot of sense to me. Energy sounds loud. It gets your heart pounding. Those bands came off the road being very tight and knew how to just lay down great grooves.

That ^ and don't forget, over here they were monitoring on 15" Tannoy DCs in BIG ass boxes. Across the pond they used EV 'Decimaters' or similar and no H&S peeps to tell them nay.

Also, Joe Public was generally listening on better gear than today? The Walkman had not arrived and many people had quite respectable hi fi setups. Even the radiograms were better that some of the squark boxes and buds people have today..Fork! The 'Music Centre' often had bigger speakers than many of today's monitors!

MOST of all, people actually sat down and fekkin' LISTENED to music! (ok, stoned, tripped or pissed much of the time but at least they were listening)

Dave.

 

[CoolCat]

Yes...that's true, and with greater track counts on tape as wider formats and new machines came along...there was more room for that.
However...I still think those studio sessions were more about capturing the sounds in the studio.
Page wasn't tracking 37 guitar parts DI, so he could then sit a month later at his computer and reamp and apply endless plugins and sims to each of the 37 tracks to get the sounds he wanted.
It was mostly happening live, in the studio...whether it was with the whole band or just 1-2 members at a time...and the sounds had to be there at the front end for the most part...and so the playing was done with that "as-it-falls" approach....nothing was intentionally being left for someone to fix in the mix later.

yeah, Glyn Johns mentions that in his book...how things went from one console to live bands in the studio and the capturing and even the bleed is there that cant be gotten when its all done solo sterile like...and the energy of playing off other musicians.....my take of his opinion, is the solo=tracking precision can be missing, he also thought when things went through the same console there was some glue vs. 12 different preamps and different eqs on each of the 45 tracks etc...

I assume though too those guys..Glyn Johns, Geoff Emerick, Ken Scott were also that era, and that was their golden days ...so its common to be less energetic for the new tech stuff isnt it? They were 50,000 hrs later sent into some time warp to the future sitting around looking at a laptop with Pro Tools on it, instead of in EMI Studio 2 behind a small tube desk overdubbing to tape using tube mics (because transistors were invented yet!)....

back in the good old days...aka...when I was younger, fresh, energetic and pumping out Billboard #1's...vs Laptop and Pro Tools at 68yrs old with some unknown band who paid top dollar because you did the Stones Satisfaction or the Eagles first album....

 

[Snowman999]

Think about it - you are not doing anything beyond boosting some frequencies (if any) and doubling the volume (until you EQ out the frequencies that are on both tracks).

Trying to explain frequencies and such to me is like a different language. But, my low and hi end tracks sound great in the mixes on all speakers and headphones. I never got that with just a single bass track. On these songs, I actually think I might have them too loud. I don't go nuts playing. But, my bass parts usually have a few really nice embellishments in them. I started out on bass.

Grimtraveller: Those bands simply made the best music. I never really looked too deeply into the recording process, I just love to listen.

 

[grimtraveller]

But, my low and hi end tracks sound great in the mixes on all speakers and headphones. I never got that with just a single bass track

No offence to mjb who has always been full of great and useful information and whom I always pay attention, but I have to say, I'm with you on this. It basically doesn't matter what the theory is in many instances ~ you know what your tracks sound like and what you like to do in order to get the sound you want.

Those bands simply made the best music. I never really looked too deeply into the recording process, I just love to listen

I'm basically the same.....but I was always interested in the artists and the social conditions that gave rise to them and what inspired their songs or what they were about. Which meant that I'd scour interviews and books {mainly bio or autobiographical in nature} over the years. I wasn't particularly looking for recording information and often, up until I actually started recording on multitracks, when I came across such info, I didn't understand much of it. To be honest, much of it passed over my head and I wasn't greatly interested but over time, I just amassed a lot of info that I remembered.
It's somewhat different now. Much of it makes a whole lotta sense.

 

[mjbphotos]

Trying to explain frequencies and such to me is like a different language. But, my low and hi end tracks sound great in the mixes on all speakers and headphones. I never got that with just a single bass track. On these songs, I actually think I might have them too loud. I don't go nuts playing. But, my bass parts usually have a few really nice embellishments in them. I started out on bass.

I got into the same kind of argument with someone I was recording here a few weeks ago, so posed the question here. She always digitally doubled her vocal track, panned each one 100% L and R - on a Tascam stand-alone recorder - and added reverb to each one separately. The answer was 'the tracks are identical. So it sounds better because it's louder.
Next time you are doing a bass track, instead of duplicating the part and doing your EQ thing separately on each track, send the bass part to 2 busses and do the EQ on those tracks, then mute the original bass part to the master (not to the sends). It should sound the same as what you've been doing, right? Assuming you are panning both Centered, now try to put the same EQ on the main bass track, unmute the send to master, and mute the 2 busses. Keep working on the EQ on the main track until it matches.

 

[assman]

i can relate to what snowman is saying about cranking up a song (like War Pigs) and it sounds way better. does that have anything to do with what they call the loudness war? (i don't know, maybe it was mentioned before, but not in those terms).

the fact that they didn't amplify their mix and then put a limiter on it maybe has something to do with it sounding better at a higher volume. also someone mentioned that bass is heard at a higher volume and it makes alot of sense. i always crank up soft machine's " Joy Of a Toy" when it comes on just because of the bass/drums, or any other soft machine song for that matter; it seems like they always lowered the volume on robert wyatt's drums, so i have to turn it up.

this may be the wrong thread, but can someone explain to me why some people say mixing at a low volume is better, or vice versa? it seems to me that if youre mixing at low volume you would have the tendency to crank up those high's and low's (even mid's, basically) because you can't hear them loud enough. so, after you put the volume back to normal, the boosted eq seems to distort in the mix.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

If you mix at high volumes you'll suffer fatigue. If you mix at low volumes you'll tend to mix lower frequencies too loud. I would mix at moderate volumes and check it at low and high volumes, and take breaks.

 

[Snowman999]

I got into the same kind of argument with someone I was recording here a few weeks ago, so posed the question here. She always digitally doubled her vocal track, panned each one 100% L and R - on a Tascam stand-alone recorder - and added reverb to each one separately. The answer was 'the tracks are identical. So it sounds better because it's louder.
Next time you are doing a bass track, instead of duplicating the part and doing your EQ thing separately on each track, send the bass part to 2 busses and do the EQ on those tracks, then mute the original bass part to the master (not to the sends). It should sound the same as what you've been doing, right? Assuming you are panning both Centered, now try to put the same EQ on the main bass track, unmute the send to master, and mute the 2 busses. Keep working on the EQ on the main track until it matches.

My way especially after seeing producelikeapro's video is so simple it's almost stupid. I used to duplicate the track and put on 4 band EQ and play till I liked what I heard. Then I watched the video and you put a one band EQ on each and do a high and lo pass. Within a minute I have what I want. It can't get any simpler than that.

You're absolutely right if you duplicate a vocal track, even with different EQs won't really do anything but make the output louder. Then depending on how loud you put them, it doesn't really do anything. BUT, to create a feel and a little substance and possibly fuller you nudge one of the tracks. It's especially useful for background vocals. You can take 2 - 3 tracks, dupe and nudge them and it's amazing how full it can sound.