Mix and Master in the same room?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

OMFG!

Yer killing me too G, it does have that vibe. I'm gonna have to superimpose a wormhole or something on the LCD screen.

And thanks John!

Yeah, when I saw the original picture with the space-age ergonomic console and the symmetrical acoustic tiling on the ceiling, one of the fist things that came to mind (after the envy, that is )was that it looked like a 3-person transporter room.

No offense meant on hijacking your image, T. I figured if someone was going to do it, it might as well be for a friendly laugh amongst allies first before some 13-yr-old with a cracked copy of Waves gets a hold of it for his "mastering" website. It can be deleted any time.

...But not before you get a wormhole up there!

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

No problem G, I may end up using your image on the site!

I have a diffusor in the back of the room that is basically a series of recessed wooden blocks. My wife wanted to put a bunch of ceramic nic nacs in there. I'm not sure how that fits in with the Star Trek theme.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I have a diffusor in the back of the room that is basically a series of recessed wooden blocks. My wife wanted to put a bunch of ceramic nic nacs in there. I'm not sure how that fits in with the Star Trek theme.

Maybe just sneak in a little ceramic repro of a 3-D chess set with all the Lladros?

G.

 

[jmorris]

funny as this is something I have questioned before. In the "old days" didn't they track and mix all in the same room ? I read about Beatles doing mixes on the fly (Geoff E.) preping for bouncing or "reduction" as I think they called it. I thought they at Abbey Road did all of the mixing in the control room, same room as tracking . For mastering they did have other rooms. Any pics of old Abbey Road doesnt show much of acoustic treatment except peg board. Old Motown/Hitsville, same deal. Some of the old recordings sound great to me, well balanced etc. Is there a way the sound is handled with todays digital equipment compared to older analog gear that requires a more exacting room? I don't at all argue the need for a correct environment when recording/mixing/mastering but it seems it wasnt that big a deal years ago...I dont know, maybe Im goofy

 

[masteringhouse]

funny as this is something I have questioned before. In the "old days" didn't they track and mix all in the same room ?

"Reduction" was just another term for mixing. Mixing and tracking was mainly done in the same room but they also recorded in separate rooms (particularly later in the Beatles career) because they couldn't stand each other. It also had to do with bookings and which room was better for a particular sound.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Some of the old recordings sound great to me, well balanced etc. Is there a way the sound is handled with todays digital equipment compared to older analog gear that requires a more exacting room? I don't at all argue the need for a correct environment when recording/mixing/mastering but it seems it wasnt that big a deal years ago...I dont know, maybe Im goofy

I think it's at least partly a combination of two things; technique and perception.

First is that these days many of us have become so reliant upon technology and flat out gear to to the work for us that we've forgotten - or never learned - how to get good sound by actually applying clever technique. On many old but quality recordings from the 50s and 60s, they had just basic tube condensor mics, some basic channel routing and level pots, *maybe* some basic EQ and probably little or no dynamics control in the form of limiting or compression, yet they made due just fine on their own wits.

Second is that many of us listen to these old recording through the rose-colord filters of nostalga and prejudice. I've gotten flack for saying this before, but I stand by it; there are many examples of vintage recordings that most here would say sound great, but frankly if an unkown artist submitted a new recording of similar sonic character to the MP3 clinic, they'd be taken out to the home recording woodshed.

G.

 

[jmorris]

I think it's at least partly a combination of two things; technique and perception.

First is that these days many of us have become so reliant upon technology and flat out gear to to the work for us that we've forgotten - or never learned - how to get good sound by actually applying clever technique. On many old but quality recordings from the 50s and 60s, they had just basic tube condensor mics, some basic channel routing and level pots, *maybe* some basic EQ and probably little or no dynamics control in the form of limiting or compression, yet they made due just fine on their own wits.

Second is that many of us listen to these old recording through the rose-colord filters of nostalga and prejudice. I've gotten flack for saying this before, but I stand by it; there are many examples of vintage recordings that most here would say sound great, but frankly if an unkown artist submitted a new recording of similar sonic character to the MP3 clinic, they'd be taken out to the home recording woodshed.

G.

Glen, I very much agree with what you are saying, in particular your point about the unknown artist submission to the mp3 clinic. However, it sems to me there is a very wide range of quality from the "old days" dont you think? Beatles white album,to me ,one of the best soundings albums ever. Listen to Cream recordings...ah crap to me sound wise. Motown stuff could sound funky. Maybe its part the rose colored glasses you mentioned I agree. Maybe it is also some of the needing to really have tallent then to make a record. Even today I hear some recordings, digital, totally digital, that I think sound fantastic, others not even close.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

it sems to me there is a very wide range of quality from the "old days" dont you think? Beatles white album,to me ,one of the best soundings albums ever. Listen to Cream recordings...ah crap to me sound wise. Motown stuff could sound funky.

I absolutely agree. Just because a recording is "vintage" does not mean it's great quality or bad quality. Quality was all over the map then, just as it is today.

Just because something is from a particular year, whether it's 1968 or 1998, means nothing in and of itself as far as technical production quality. I agree on Cream, and I'd personally throw The Band in there too. Two of my all-time favorite bands from that era, but two bands who tended to put out albums that I'd give my left lung to re-engineer myself. Even within bands, the sonic quality could be all over the map. A classic example IMHO is the Stones. Some of their stuff sounded fantastic, others just don't stand up to time in the sonic quality category.

And there's also another variable to throw in to the mix (weak pun intended.) When someone is listening to that stuff today, they have to factor in just whcih commercial pressing/release they're listening to. There are a whole lot of CD re-releases, vinyl re-issues, import versions, etc. where the remastering job - or lack thereof - creates a playback medium that can sound much better or much worse than the original or any given version in-between. I've got plenty of re-mastered CDs that suck compared to the original vinyl because the re-mastering job (or lack thereof) just obliterated the original sonics or dynamics. And vice versa.

But all-in-all, to get back to the question, I gotta say that it's a wash. Is there less tape and vinyl hiss today? Sure. But there's just as much crap engineering and good engineering today as there was 40 years ago. The increase in technical quality of gear and studio design may have made some things easier, but it sure hasn't necessarily (IMHO anyway) made it any better as an overall average.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Which Cream album bugs you guys the most? I haven't listened to them in a while, but from what I can recall "Fresh Cream" sounded pretty good.

Also remember that much of the old stuff was mixed for mono, so in some ways this was less demanding. In other ways (in particular phase) more demanding. I think the trend has become more and more reliant on mixing to fix issues that should be taken care of during pre-production and recording. Most of the early Beatles albums were recorded in a day. You rarely see that now.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Which Cream album bugs you guys the most? I haven't listened to them in a while, but from what I can recall "Fresh Cream" sounded pretty good.

Boy, I don't remember which songs came from which albums all that welll (except the fact that "Badge" was on the "Goodbye" album is something I'll always remember.)

For me, I'll admit that part of it was just the way Cream intrinsically sounded - there was always something kinda discordant about putting Jack Bruce's and Eric Clapton's voices together in a nasaly way over Ginger Baker's saturation warfare drums that I couldn't quite put my finger on and that always kinda grated on the back of my neck, even though I did love the stuff on the whole.

But there's more than that. There was usually (not always) a thinness to the drums sonically that didn't fit the fullness of his playing, and often (not always) a rather midrange-heavy balance to the mix all around. I always suspected that it may at least partly be because it was engineered for maximum AM radio effect, but I don't really know that for a fact.

Clapton, in fact seemed to have a black cloud of midrange following him wherever he went from the 60s through the 80s (John Mayall's Bluesbreakers being an exception.) So much stuff he did with other bands and solo - live and studio - has such a thin, honking midrange sound to it (to my ears, anyway). He is one of my favorite artists, but his albums always left a lot to be desired sonically to my tastes. It wasn't until the era of "Unplugged" and "From The Cradle" that he finally got that particular monkey off his back, IMHO.

G.

 

[bblackwood]

Of course you can mix and master in the same rooom, but you're going to have pay very careful attention to translation - the room anomalies that exist during mixing will still be there during mastering...

 

[masteringhouse]

Clapton, in fact seemed to have a black cloud of midrange following him wherever he went from the 60s through the 80s (John Mayall's Bluesbreakers being an exception.) So much stuff he did with other bands and solo - live and studio - has such a thin, honking midrange sound to it (to my ears, anyway). He is one of my favorite artists, but his albums always left a lot to be desired sonically to my tastes. It wasn't until the era of "Unplugged" and "From The Cradle" that he finally got that particular monkey off his back, IMHO.

I believe Clapton used a Pignose amp for all of the Layla sessions. That may have something to do with that album. Tom Dowd did much of the producing and engineering of the Cream albums, as well as Allman Bros, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, etc. I don't think I would put him in a list of bad engineers.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I believe Clapton used a Pignose amp for all of the Layla sessions. That may have something to do with that album.Tom Dowd did much of the producing and engineering of the Cream albums, as well as Allman Bros, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, etc. I don't think I would put him in a list of bad engineers

That doesn't explain the absolutely awful (again, IMHO) sonic results on the Clapton "Just One Night" live set, which BTW was produced and engineered by John Astley, who is certainly no slouch himself (from Bowie to Bolton), or the otherwise excellent "Slowhand" album ("The Core", "Cocaine", "Lay Down Sally") which, to me, is an album of excellent material that even Glyn Johns couldn't make sound properly full spectrum because of the Clapton Cloud. The whole thing sounds like it was recorded through a high-quality AM radio to me.

Go through the much of rest of the pre-90s list; "Wonderful Tonight", "After Midnight", "I Can't Stand It", "I Shot The Sheriff" and so on. All excellent performances of great songs usually engineered by A-list people who I don't mean to disparage, yet there's some ineffible quality that seems to act like a "bland-izer" plug on the sonic excitement of each of these songs. And no, it's not the Strats (listen to the same strats through "5 Long Years" on the "From The Cradle" album or "Don't Think Twice" on the Dylan 30 Year Tribute album to hear the difference), or his voice (which, granted, is no baritone, but that's not the problem), or his accompaniment, or his arrangements.

I don't know what it is, to be honest. And no, it's not bias or prejudice on my part either, I don't think, because Clapton is one of my all-time favorite artists. Just for some reason I have a problem with the sound (not with the music) of most of the middle 20 years or so of his catalog, regardless of who is riding the faders.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

G. I think that one has to ask what is the common denominator here? It seems to be Clapton himself. I was once told that he rolled-off a good portion of the high-end of his guitar with his tone knob. Maybe that's one of the contributing factors to the "Clapton Cloud".

One of the marks of a good engineer (IMHO) is to capture the signature of the artist, not imprint his own. The later Clapton albums sounded very processed to me, less like Eric and more like Eric on a Budweiser beer commercial if you get what I mean. But then I like early Muddy Waters recordings over the better produced (and sonically better) albums like "Hard Again". They are definitely uglier sonically, but that's one of the characteristics of Blues music that I love. It's almost a case of if it "sounds good" it doesn't.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

G. I think that one has to ask what is the common denominator here? It seems to be Clapton himself. I was once told that he rolled-off a good portion of the high-end of his guitar with his tone knob. Maybe that's one of the contributing factors to the "Clapton Cloud".

Agreed. It could possibly be a build up of a lot of little things like that.

One thing I always wondered, but don't even begin to claim to have an answer to, is how much say in the production EC has in the control room and how much he took advantage of that; the common denomiator I always wondered was whether that was because that was the way he liked the mixes to sound himself.

But it's not just the guitar/amp settings, I don't think, because the whole mix to me sounds a bit spectrally anemic on a lot of his stuff. I can't put my finger on it because honestly I never put that much time or effort into analyzing it (I spend more time analyzing productions I like better ) Just something I noticed over time and just kind of filed away.

And yeah, it's also entirely subjective on the part of the listener. Like I say, maybe EC liked his mixes that way. And I have no doubt that I might be (unintentionally) ruffling a few feathers of a few readers here who think that I must be cracked in the head to say that "Cocaine" is anything less than a beautiful production. But as we all know, this is as much an art as it is a science, and art is always a matter of taste.

G.

 

[FALKEN]

Yeah. Clapton's tone sucks.

 

[masteringhouse]

Yeah. Clapton's tone sucks.

To be clear I'm not saying that, or that his early recordings suck. I'm just trying to understand Glen's and jmorris' comments.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

To be clear I'm not saying that, or that his early recordings suck. I'm just trying to understand Glen's and jmorris' comments.

And also to be clear, Tom, I'm not saying that Clapton's tone sucks either. I have heard him live and he sounded great, on three different guitars during that one concert. And I have never in this thread directly make a negative comment about the tone of his guitar. I even at at least one point mentioned that I did not believe it was the guitar itself that was the issue, nor was his playing of it.

What I did say was that *the mixes* sounded somewhat spectrally limited to me and/or leaned too heavily toward the midrange for my tastes. That means the overall mix, including all instruments and all vocals as assembled into a final product. That's not the same as the misleading and incorrect oversimplification of saying that I thought "Clapton's tone sucks." Those are just the words of someone who has a grudge against anything I have to say and is trying to belittle me. Ignore him.

Just my opinion to my tastes. If someone else disagrees with me and thinks that "Lay Down Sally" or "Wonderful Tonight" wouldn't benefit from a bit fuller-sounding of a treatment, that's cool, and that's just as valid of an opinion as a listener as mine is. All I'm saying is that to my style and taste, I'd like to hear a bit more flesh than bone in most of his mixes.

G.

 

[FALKEN]

And Those are just the words of someone who has a grudge against anything I have to say and is trying to belittle me. Ignore him.

way to take things personal. The fact is you post more than any other user on this bbs. FAR more. You say SO MUCH that if I am going to post in just about ANY thread here its likely that you have already said something on the subject or are about to. If I called you out for misinformation it wasn't because I have a personal grudge against you.

 

[jmorris]

With regards to Claptons sound. I think a person/artist has a sound and it's "their" sound to a certain degree. No matter who the engineer is. It can alter a bit with environment and engineers but it's their sound. Put Beatles in different studio in 1968 and it will sound like Betales. Example, correct me if I'm wrong ( which happens a lot LOL) but wasn't "Hey Jude" and ":Baby your a rich man" recorded at Olympic due to sched. problems at Abbey Road? Totally different console, room,engineer but sounds like any other Beatles recording..to my ears anyways. Frampton had that funky studio recording ghost on him too. Live was great, studio, very plain.