Going backwards

[RFR]

One of my bandmates and I had a conversation. He recently got into digital daw recording. Been at it for about a year and has had extensive analog experience.
He says and I quote. “The more I learn the worse my mixes get. In the old days it was so easy.”

I thought about this for a while....... hmm. The same is true for me.

Back in the day you twiddled some knobs till it sounded good. And it did. Mixes I did 20 some years ago STILL sound good and new Daw mixes sound like crap.

One thing might be a possibility and ‘produce like a pro’ had a recent episode on this topic.....compression.

In the old days there was some form of compression on every stage of the process via tape, console, outboard etc.

Warren from produce like a pro seems to agree. He talks about needing to apply compression on every channel rather than at your master buss.
The tricky thing for me however is getting enough to be effective while retaining subtlety

What you all think?

 

[miroslav]

While I agree it felt "easier" back in the day when you had just a few faders and knobs to mess with...but I don't think that's what makes things sounds better.

I do feel that DAW's can be very overwhelming, both for newbs, and even for the guys who spent years just working off of a tape deck and mixer...but I think that isn't the absolute problem with DAWs. IOW...I think you can overcome the complexity and/or choose to work in more simpler ways even with a DAW, so that it's no more involved than a deck and mixer.

IMO...what's at the heart of any problem...is that 1.) back in the day, because of the mixing limitations, more time was spent on getting the right sounds during tracking...and that 2.) with DAWs...everyone kinda works backwards (not trying to make a pun out of your thread title)...in that they focus more on getting the right sounds AFTER tracking, in the DAW, during mixing.

There was a time where I wanted to blame the DAW, the computer....for my difficulties...but I've gotten over that, and the more time I've spent with DAWs, the more they feel as comfortable as the basics back in the day. So I would never go back to just deck and mixer...but if that is a real comfort zone for anyone, then do so.

The other aspect of DAWs that can be a problem (and something that I've experienced)...is the ability, and subsequent desire, to over-produce everything.
With a DAW, it feels like you have endless possibilities...and sometimes also the notion that whatever is wrong, some feature or some plugin is going to save you, and provide the needed magic...and that becomes a rabbit hole, so you go deeper with the productions thinking that the answers are in the complexity of the production...more will = better...etc...

 

[grimtraveller]

“The more I learn the worse my mixes get. In the old days it was so easy.”

I've never found it easy ! I do like learning different things though, as long as they are things I can actually apply.Personally, I think my mixes are getting better. I spent a couple of weeks recently listening to older mixes and there were so many times when I found myself thinking that I wish I'd known back in the early 90s and 2000s what I know now. I loved the songs still and I think some of the ideas were fantastic but lack of experience, knowledge and patience made some of those mixes far lesser than they ought to have been and some of them are unlistenable. Mind you, in saying that, I think it also applied to much of my arranging and some of the tracking mentality I had then. Whereas now, I'll do songs in sections, use a click where there's no drums or followable percussion or utilize a capo, in those days I was idealistic, having just come out of 10 years as a jamming musician and a few years as a live one and the songs, for want of a better word, suffered accordingly.

Back in the day you twiddled some knobs till it sounded good

Well, I do that now. In a way, I've gone backwards insofar as I try to keep things simple when I'm mixing. I like to watch videos where mixers talk about what they do but it's more an interest thing than a curiosity thing for me. When they start demonstrating their mixing, I switch off mentally because I can't follow what they're doing. I have an easier time with new testament Greek than I do with all the DAW stuff I see guys like Warren and Graham doing ! I like a basic, simple set up. On the recording side I like lots of scope and myriad ways of playing and capturing sounds.

The tricky thing for me however is getting enough to be effective while retaining subtlety

I have always had a hard time with compression. I first heard of it in '92 in a book, the part which speaks of the Beatles recording the "Revolver" album. It coincided with me starting to multitrack and I had no one to show me what to do so I had to try to translate what I was reading in various magazines and booklets into a context in which I didn't have a clue what I was supposed to be hearing. With effects like chorus, flange, phasing, delay and reverb, it was easy because you could hear straight away what a knob twiddle did. With an enhancer/exciter and compression, it was not. I couldn't hear the effect half the time. I still can't !So I've long been subtle with it. I've had to be. I can tell when I've set the various settings in such a way that whatever the compressor is hitting sounds ugly {to me} and so I back off until it no longer sounds ugly and I have to assume some subtle compression is taking place !
I actually rarely use compression. When I do, it's more for sound shaping than anything else.
When I used to mix on a cassette portastudio, the last module in my chain would be the compressor {on a light setting} going into the exciter and some of those mixes sounded okay so I presume that the mixes weren't harmed. On the other hand, some of them were pretty crap though I think that was really down to me rather than the compressor !

 

[grimtraveller]

IMO what's at the heart of any problem...is that 1.) back in the day, because of the mixing limitations, more time was spent on getting the right sounds during tracking...and that 2.) with DAWs...everyone kinda works backwards in that they focus more on getting the right sounds AFTER tracking, in the DAW, during mixing

I think there's a lot in this and I also think that it was natural and inevitable that it be so. By the end of the 70s, analog recording was so complex in comparison to the 50s and early 60s and engineers and producers were being pushed to their creative limits by artists that were no longer bound by writing a simple song on a piano or guitar, arranged by an "arranger" or fleshed out by the band or session musicians in the studio, recorded in a 3 hour session {in which 4 finished songs would be taped}, mixed in half an hour and in the shops in 10 days. The DAW was the natural and inevitable next step, especially once drum machines had joined the synthesizer as the one stop shop that meant what used to need 15 people could now be done by 3. It was also inevitable that DAWs would progressively utilize all the bells and whistles and make mixers and huge consoles unecessary to those that didn't want some hulking great beast taking up half the room. Even by 1967 it was increasingly less vital to get the finished sound during tracking. But there has always been and I hope will always be, those that work on the sound they want there and then and commit it to track with no alterations. I also think it's inevitable that there will also always be those that manipulate their instrument sounds after the event. These are simply the two ways of generating sounds.
Personally, I utilize both methods. And however I go about it, one of the greatest things lots of contributors over the years at HR.com have done for me is to get it firmly fixed in my head that that source signal, whether it's going to be monkeyed about with later or whether it's the chosen and final sound as it's being played/sung, must be a good sound in and of itself, a sound that shouldn't need 'fixing' afterwards because it wasn't recorded well. Manipulate by all means, but because that's what you intended, not because a piece of crap needs fixing {although that can lead to great places too}.

The other aspect of DAWs that can be a problem (and something that I've experienced)...is the ability, and subsequent desire, to over-produce everything.

I agree wholeheartedly with that and that says more about us as human beings than it does about having all the bells and whistles within a DAW. I actually don't have a problem with over production per se. What I have a problem with is when over production becomes the status quo and anything outside of that is cast to the wayside because it's not over produced. Many of the "produce like a pro" type tutors out there can unwittingly push that concept, when you see a drum track made up of 7 kicks, 3 snares, overheads, room mics, toms, New York compression etc ! I'm being facetious of course but I suspect in such a milieu, the guy that wants to just have mono drums on one track can often feel like they are swimming against the tide and some listeners may not give such productions a fair shake, rather like many that just won't take yesteryear's films and cartoons because they're not like today's CGI spectaculars. I guess I'm one of those people that thinks there's room for all methods and indeed, the many differences in sound reproduction and production in general is what has long kept music fresh for me.

 

[mjbphotos]

I think the idea that compression is needed on EVERY track is a fallacy, at least for most genres of music. The loudness wars and the 'sausage casing' wave form are (hopefully) not the norm now.

As already said, getting the sound right when tracking is the key. Moderate compression can help tracks sit together better. Got a track with a lot of 'spikes'? Put two mild compressors on it instead of one drastic one.