Digital....Disappointment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob's Mods
  • Start date Start date
B

Bob's Mods

New member
:( Everyone should have a favorite CD that they like the sound of to use as a model for how they wish their own recordings to aspire to. Mine happens to be Fleetwood Mac's Tango. It was recorded sometime in the mid 70's.
What an amazing recording. The track to track definition is superb. The detail is incredible. The detail in the high end, the 9kHz and above range is clean and focused. And you know, as highly tweeked as my digital system is. As clean as my analog chain is, it is just NO WHERE AS GOOD AS ANYTHING ON TANGO.
It probably was recorded in a great room, with the best of mics, preamps, gear, and mixing console of the day. Hell, they probably even used the best mic stands and booms that money could buy.
I've got a respectable convertor and super clean preamp that I made. Much of my stuff has been modded to sqweeze every ounce of blood of performance that I can out of it and yet, I cannot touch the clarity of that great recording.
As I listen to other great classics I hear a clarity and focus in the upper range that is impossible for me to reproduce. It kinda bums me that as far as we've come in the digital domain, the kind of quality Tango represents is still a dream. I guess I've expected too much from expensive components, knowledge and technical ability. My recordings are decent, but they lack that spark that some of those great analog studios possessed. When you listen to Beatles recordings, most of their stuff was recorded with the best technology had to offer in that day. They recorded with tube mics, tube pres, tube compressors, tube amps and even a tube console up to Abbey Road. Abbey Road was recorded with a transistor console. It all sounds dynamic and amazing to this very day.
Currently the things in my bag of tricks to bring out that super high end detail is some software EQ, some mid/side stereo adjusting and an exciter. Its really not the same but is better than nothing. I also use a dose of software EQ low cut/high pass filtering track to track.
I can't help but think that the big contributor to the high end detail problem is the mics though. I do not believe audiophile grade mics are capable of generating the high end detail thats present on Tango. I've got a highly modded CAD M9 and an AKG C2000B. Is it possible for a really good high end mic alone to make that much difference in the tracking? Sure, I know about the whole chain, but lets assume for now the rest of my system is optimized. Can a really super duper studio mic be the difference between the audiophile hoe-hum performance such as I'm currently getting now and the performance I'm hearing on Tango? Would a hardware EQ make more of difference than a software EQ?
Or worse, to get a Tango level of quality are we relegated to paying $1k+ for a mic, a pre and a convertor box each at the very least to play in that sand box?

What do you use for a master model CD and do you feel your DAW rig is capable of matching its sonic character? :confused:

thanks all!
Bob
 
Last edited:
Well I just got a UAD-1 . . . ask me in a couple of months :D

Seriously, if you think about the hardware versions of the plugs in that card, there is no way, shape, or form I can afford that. And that's just processing, ignoring the entire front end of my chain.

I think my new reference is Brian Wilson's Smile, which is a modern digital recording that is absolutely gorgeous. They used an excellent room, scads of vintage Neumanns, killer pres and outboard, and ProTools. I don't have any of those things :(

I built or modified much of my gear to improve results at an affordable price. It helps, but it isn't going to work miracles.

I don't worry about. As long as I am continually improving, that's good enough for me. If I only thought it was worth it if I could be the best, I would have quit playing guitar the first time I watched Steve Howe play "The Clap" in that Yessongs movie. But I didn't quit, and eventually I could play it too . . . just not quite that well :cool:
 
Overall high-end sharpness and focus often lies in the converter used. A $1K converter, as most of us are used to, just doesn't quite cut it there. Pretty astounding differences can result from moving from prosumer to truly top-notch A/D's like Lavry.


Mind you, if there's some specific element that's lacking air, you're very right when you say the mics may be at fault.

I have a hard time believing that you have even 1/20th the amount of money invested in your signal chain as your favourite recordings did when you mention things like a CAD M9, "exciters," etc. Just think about that. Their tape deck alone probably cost more than you make in a year... let alone the comparison between its cost and the cost of your A/D converters.
Move up the chain to their price level and you will be able to achieve their quality, digital or not.

Just make damn sure your musicians are worth it too :)
 
Be thankful that you can hear the difference, and care about it. Most can't and don't.
 
And the budget for that record compared to your investment???

It helps to keep all of this stuff in perspective.

Hell, they prolly spent more on blow doing that record than any given 5-10 of us have in our entire rig.
 
Mine will probably be The Final Cut.



I'll just never get there - but that's ok. If I did I'd just have to find someplace else I wish I was. :)
 
Well ...

So far in your post, I noticed you mentioned :

*mics
*tubes :D
*converters

and a brief mention of rooms.

Hell, you even mentioned mic stands, for cryin' out loud.

But I don't think I noticed even one mention about the source. Now I apologize in advance for making an example of your post, here -- so keep in mind this is just another one of my classic rants and it's nothing personal. But at times, I feel like there is a collective learning disability amongst the general amateur home recording enthusiasts.

Serious tweakheads like yourself, Bob, I imagine can literally spend hours (possibly even whole days) swapping out caps, chips, and transformers ... all the while playing hopeful delusions on your ears that they're going to somehow make a .00001% improvement in the sonic quality. :D God love you guys for it, because some of this stuff does make a difference, I'll admit. And I thank you for it.

Now I'm speaking from a certain amount of experience with this. There was a time when I was recording music close to full time. And I've tried tirelessly to help people to understand this, but most of the time, it's like I'm talking to a wall. Take this for whatever it's worth ... the quality of the instruments, amplfiers ... right down to the type of strings being used on a guitar for a particular session ... the type of heads used on a kit and expecially the kind of cymbals ...

These are what matter. Perhaps it's just difficult for some people to comprehend that the type of stick or beater used on a drum kit will have a far greater effect on the quality and fidelity of the recording than the type of converter used. It's a humbling thought, but I'm telling you now, it's probably true.

Now the mic stand thing is still kinda' iffy. :D Okay, I'll give you that much. Worry about the kind of converter chip being used before you worry about the metal used on the mic / boom ... although even that one might be iffy (particularly if it's a very reflective type of metal used in the contruction of the boom stand).

I think where the problem lies is that people separate recording quality and fidelity from quality of the sound source. As if it's somehow possible to have a great recording of a bad-sounding source or vice-versa. What I am proposing to some of you who still have this antiquated way of thinking is this: Has it ever occured to you that certain types of instruments or sources record better? To such an extent, in fact, that if you were to compare two different sources, the better-sonding source will trick your brain in to believing a better microphone or a better recording medium (or even mic stand) must have been used to capture that sound.

One of the things you mentioned was high end. Alright, let's go with an hypothetical example for this. Suppose on one of the sessions, Mick Fleetwood insists on using some run-of-the-mill Sabien hi-hat, ride, and crash cymbals. Furthermore, let's suppose that Lindsay Buckingham decided he liked the sound of heavier-guage strings and lost his favorite guitar pick so he grabs a super thick one. Now, suppose they're both in bad moods (Maybe one guy's pissed at the other guy for sleeping with Stevie) ... so they both start hitting their strings and smacking their cymbals really hard and rough.

What kind of an effect do think these things are going to have on the high end smoothness and fidelity of the finished recording? MULTITUDES. And ya wanna' know why? Because some mixing engineer is going to be pulling his hair out ... losing sleep due to ear fatigue, and probably making bad mixing decisions due to treble deafness and stress from trying to make the high end on final mix even passable so that guys like Bob's Mods can talk about how nice it all sounds decades later.

You would not be commenting on it, because it would sound like ass. And the majority of the home recording masses would be saying stuff like : "I'll bet they used really bad converters on that album."

The quality and fidelity of the high end on some of these records can certainly be improved / enhanced by a good mastering engineer -- I'll at least give you that much. I've heard it, in fact, myself. And they freakin' better, for the rates that some of them charge. :D But if you really want to know what good, quality, smooth high end / treble boils down to ... it's in the quality and technique of the instruments producing the higher frequencies. This includes the drum cymbals, the accoustic guitar, and some of the other little percussive pieces and odds and ends. Similarly, the secret to good, tight bass is going to lie mostly in the quality and technique of the bass guitar (including the type of strings used) and kick drum ... and very largely due to the bass response of the rooms being tracked in.
 
chessrock said:
Now I'm speaking from a certain amount of experience with this. There was a time when I was recording music close to full time. And I've tried tirelessly to help people to understand this, but most of the time, it's like I'm talking to a wall. Take this for whatever it's worth ... the quality of the instruments, amplfiers ... right down to the type of strings being used on a guitar for a particular session ... the type of heads used on a kit and expecially the kind of cymbals ...
Click to expand...

Heh . . . the problem with we tinkerers is that generally we are doing to exact same thing to our instruments . . . right now I've got a set of toms that I need to rework the bearing edges, an acoustic guitar that is halfway through a fret recrown and its saddle needs help too, a bass guitar that needs a few solder joints checked, and a new set of strings that's a new gauge which means reintonation . . . and a bell set that's on the block because it just isn't chimy enough.

Is there any hope for us :confused:
 
mshilarious said:
Heh . . . the problem with we tinkerers is that generally we are doing to exact same thing to our instruments . . . right now I've got a set of toms that I need to rework the bearing edges, an acoustic guitar that is halfway through a fret recrown and its saddle needs help too, a bass guitar that needs a few solder joints checked, and a new set of strings that's a new gauge which means reintonation . . . and a bell set that's on the block because it just isn't chimy enough.

Is there any hope for us :confused:
Click to expand...


YES ! YES ! YES !

What a beautiful and functional way to channel your natural inclination to tweak.
 
i think the thing that's lost on most people today is that if you can manage to find a good band who consistently plays well together, then really as a recordist all you need to do is put them in a good sounding room, hang some mics and get the hell out of their way.

but these days, it's "make me sound good"......when instead it should be "can you please try to do my tone some justice with that mic of yours?"

the andy johns article in tapeop a few months back was spot-on in that regard. (paraphrasing) he said that he always despaired when trying to record bonzo b/c the recorded result *never* sounded as good as it did being in the room with the man while he was playing. how often can we say that about a drummer that we record? we're always trying to "tame" this and "fix" that. bonzo, though, knew how to tune his kit and how to *play* his drums in a musical way. the tone was in his hands.

that's something that i wish a lot of today's bands would bother to learn rather than "you can fix that in the computer, right?".


cheers,
wade
 
Chess,

Thanks for helping me regain perspective. I've been trying to salvage a recording of a great song that didn't have proper mic placement on the guitar and the key was too low for the vocalist to get proper resonance in her lower register. I've already spent way too much time trying to make it into something that just isn't there.
Quality of performance first!

Regards,
Terry
 
Mshilarious, I detect a kindred spirit. We probably would make great engineers and producers.

Chess, a great post. I believe sensitivity and accuracy are the problem though. I'm hearing it in so many of the recordings that come from decent studios from the past AND digital studios of the present. I want that sensitivity and accuracy to record my Seagull Folk guitar and my upgraded Rogue ES335 copy through my Cube 60. Lest I not forget my middle of the road vocals too.

As you know, Chess Records got great recordings of those blues masters who used low end instruments and amps. I'm not so sure my problem is one of source as I am truly happy with my source stuff. And yeah, I can even live with my room sound! Its the recordings themselves. I just don't think they even measure up to even the old Chess recording studio standard of that time. Does Chess Records ring any bell with you? Chess?

Maybe its more like bleyrad says, maybe I need to step up to a Lavry.

Bob
 
chessrock said:
the quality of the instruments, amplfiers ... right down to the type of strings being used on a guitar for a particular session ... the type of heads used on a kit and expecially the kind of cymbals ...

These are what matter. Perhaps it's just difficult for some people to comprehend that the type of stick or beater used on a drum kit will have a far greater effect on the quality and fidelity of the recording than the type of converter used. It's a humbling thought, but I'm telling you now, it's probably true.
Click to expand...

Right on!

For example, when Mark Opitz recorded AC/DC's "Powerage", each guitarist had about 4 Marshall heads and 8 different speaker boxes to choose from. Mark would spend 2 weeks going through every combination of not only head and box, but also finding which speaker in that box gave him the right sound to mic.
 
But I don't think I noticed even one mention about the source.

Take this for whatever it's worth ... the quality of the instruments, amplfiers ... right down to the type of strings being used on a guitar for a particular session ... the type of heads used on a kit and expecially the kind of cymbals ...

These are what matter. Perhaps it's just difficult for some people to comprehend that the type of stick or beater used on a drum kit will have a far greater effect on the quality and fidelity of the recording than the type of converter used. It's a humbling thought, but I'm telling you now, it's probably true.

I think where the problem lies is that people separate recording quality and fidelity from quality of the sound source. As if it's somehow possible to have a great recording of a bad-sounding source or vice-versa. What I am proposing to some of you who still have this antiquated way of thinking is this: Has it ever occured to you that certain types of instruments or sources record better? To such an extent, in fact, that if you were to compare two different sources, the better-sonding source will trick your brain in to believing a better microphone or a better recording medium (or even mic stand) must have been used to capture that sound.

Yoe, Chess,

I understand where your commin' from on this but the troubleshooter nature in me has bulls eyed my recording rig, maybe the convertors, more likely the mics. I don't own the greatest of the great gear, but I'm happy with it. How they sound on a good recording ain't gonna bother me much. Its the recording itself thats not capturing the detail of my gear the way it sounds natively. I don't have to have walls of cherry picked gear to sound the way I would like. Its the medium thats not interpreting what I already have with the detail I'm hearing in more professionally recorded mixes.

Bob
 
Bob's Mods said:
Its the medium thats not interpreting what I already have with the detail I'm hearing in more professionally recorded mixes.
Click to expand...

I would also argue that pro recordings don't just capture what is there. It's very much like film--if you're into photography, you know that color has gotten greatly exaggerated in the last 15 years. The funny thing is the gold standard for 'natural' reproduction by comparison is good ol' Kodachrome--which is still an enhanced color film!

So I think a big part of pro recordings is exaggerating the high end, but it has to be done in a pristine way or it sounds like crap.

Consider how different rock recording is from classical recording. A rock recording can't really exist as a live performance--you can't set up a pair of DPAs in a brilliant room on a great rock band that has no amplification, unless you had a reaaaaalllly quiet drummer. So as soon as we start adding spot mics, first with the vocalist, then guitar amps, then a direct bass, then drums, we are enhancing. Few would put a flat response mic in front of a pop singer.

So I see the problem as twofold: you need a good sounding source (skills and gear), and then your engineering (skills and gear) need to make it sound better than it really does.
 
Bob's Mods said:
Its the medium thats not interpreting what I already have with the detail I'm hearing in more professionally recorded mixes.
Click to expand...


Yea, ya know ... you're right. It's the medium.

You just need better converters, Bob, and you'll be all set. Or maybe a good 2" analog deck. Then everything should sound like the professionally-produced records you like.

It's really that simple, isn't it?


You know, I've been cooking now for about a year. And my stuff somehow never matches up to what I have at some of the finer 4-star restaurants here in Chicago.

I've narrowed my problem down to the following possibilities:

* The pots
* pans
* bowls
* oven

I definitely get the feeling it's the oven, ya see, because my stuff always has this slightly over-cooked or slightly undercooked (in the middle) taste to it ... doesn't really cook evenly. So anyway, I've decided it's most likely the oven that doesn't have the necessary heating capabilities like they must have in these nice restaurants.
 
chessrock said:
So anyway, I've decided it's most likely the oven that doesn't have the necessary heating capabilities like they must have in these nice restaurants.
Click to expand...

They don't! I once got to bake one of my bread recipes for a youth group fundraiser, and I got to use a commercial convection oven. Damn, that thing could bake 10 loaves at once more evenly and crisply than I can bake one at home, and in half the time!

I also worked in a pizza restaurant for three years. You just can't get the same crust out of a home oven. Believe me, I've tried :(
 
Alright, then, bad example.


Let's try this again ...

I've narrowed it down to the following:

* Poor quality wooden spoons

* Bad aprons

* Need one of those cool chef's hats
 
I know that in the best studios that I have been in, the goal is to make the recording sound just like the source. So many bands are flustered, because they can't get the sound on albums where A. They have better musicians and B. They have great gear that gets the tone just the way that they want. I think alot of times in todays recordings people think they can just fix it in the mix, but all you get in the end is a synthetic sounding recording and none of the clarity of a vintage mix.
 
chessrock said:
Alright, then, bad example.


Let's try this again ...

I've narrowed it down to the following:

* Poor quality wooden spoons

* Bad aprons

* Need one of those cool chef's hats
Click to expand...

OK then :D







I would like one of those hats though :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top