"The average record comes in to us probably sounding worse than it ever has"

[flatfinger]

"The average record comes in to us probably sounding worse than it ever has"

Believe me, the good guys are still doing great work. But a lot of the indie stuff we get, some of it sounds pretty bad. So a good mastering engineer can turn something that sounds like dog meat into something that sounds at least normal. So by spending a few thousand dollars on good mastering, it will sound like your budget went up $100,000.

http://mixonline.com/recording/mastering/qa-bob-ludwig/







The great majority of us who frequent these boards should probably concentrate on the art and science of mixing and spend allot less effort and time on mastering softwares and trying to fix it in the shrink-wrap.


Or ; just send all of our stuff to Bob !!!!





P.S.
Interesting how this forum lumps these together in the same area, keeping the mixing subject in it's own area would be more productive for most. (IMHO only of course !)

 

[Massive Master]

The great majority of us who frequent these boards should probably concentrate on the art and science of mixing and spend allot less effort and time on mastering softwares and trying to fix it in the shrink-wrap.

Great TRACKING for that matter. Most of the stuff I get in that's "wrecked" was wrecked before the RECORD button was ever pressed for the first time. Bad core sounds, tracking too hot (that'll kill a project quickly), poor arrangement - Certainly, mixing with the wrong goals (trying to make something go where it doesn't want to go just to match the mix 'in your head' for example) doesn't help either...

 

[eyeteeth]

I didn't need an article to know that. In this age everyone with a computer and a few extra bucks is opening a "Studio". I see craigslist adds all the time for "complete demos for $50" from these places. Once upon a time, the gear was expensive, and as a musician, you had to be on your game to make recording worth it, and as an engineer/producer you had to work you way up or be able to demonstrate proficiency and a good ear to get to work in, or own a studio.

It's the double edged sword... music and it's distribution is more accessible than ever. The 'new' accessibility is no longer based in any way on talent or knowledge. 10-15 minutes randomly perusing myspace band pages is all you need to confirm that.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

P.S. Interesting how this forum lumps these together in the same area, keeping the mixing subject in it's own area would be more productive for most. (IMHO only of course !)

This was brought up in another thread, and I think agreed on by many.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I really hate to say it, but I suspect the reason the "average record" is sounding worse than ever is because a lot more records are being made by hobbyists like us working in their home studios and learning as they record, and not by pros who've been doing this for years. I further suspect that maybe even a bigger cause is that prior to the home recording revolution, there was sort of an innate "filter" in place in the recording process - that the only people making records where either those who were getting picked up by labels and put in the studio, or those rare souls who just had a fuck-ton of money and felt like paying someone out of pocket to record them. Now? Any idiot with GarageBand can "make a record." Sometimes, that's good. Sometimes, that's not.

I'm getting ready to make a record myself. I know for a fact that even 15 years ago, no one would have had any interest in signing me to record an instrumental rock album. When I do eventually send it off to get mastered, I'll do so knowing full well that it'd have never existed even ten or fifteen years ago, and that because of that it's almost bound to be less professionally tracked and mixed. I'm trying my hardest to learn everything I can to make it as good as I can do myself, but that doesn't change the fact it's a home project studio job, not a pro recording.

Thankfully, I'm pretty ok with that, and just really fucking enjoy tracking and mixing.

 

[philbagg]

I really hate to say it, but I suspect the reason the "average record" is sounding worse than ever is because a lot more records are being made by hobbyists like us working in their home studios and learning as they record, and not by pros who've been doing this for years. I further suspect that maybe even a bigger cause is that prior to the home recording revolution, there was sort of an innate "filter" in place in the recording process - that the only people making records where either those who were getting picked up by labels and put in the studio, or those rare souls who just had a fuck-ton of money and felt like paying someone out of pocket to record them. Now? Any idiot with GarageBand can "make a record." Sometimes, that's good. Sometimes, that's not.

I'm getting ready to make a record myself. I know for a fact that even 15 years ago, no one would have had any interest in signing me to record an instrumental rock album. When I do eventually send it off to get mastered, I'll do so knowing full well that it'd have never existed even ten or fifteen years ago, and that because of that it's almost bound to be less professionally tracked and mixed. I'm trying my hardest to learn everything I can to make it as good as I can do myself, but that doesn't change the fact it's a home project studio job, not a pro recording.

Thankfully, I'm pretty ok with that, and just really fucking enjoy tracking and mixing.

I gotta spread some rep first

I'm a fan of your spirit, keep it up mang

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I gotta spread some rep first

I'm a fan of your spirit, keep it up mang

:lol: Thanks. I think there's something kind of, eh, enabling in realizing that you're a hack, you're unqualified, and you can't stack up against the competition, but pushing ahead anyways.

 

[Grahamrunsran]

Yeah but...

I think it's interesting to comment that some great music from a long time ago was also recorded at "home" as well, (ie early motown, Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska, etc) but back then, what sounded crappy sounded crappy in a great way. A lot of that old motown stuff is distorted like crazy but in such a great way that somehow lends it's self to the music. It seems they weren't trying to imitate as much as trying to make something "new." I think one of the biggest problems today is that so often "recorded at home" means "tried to sound like it wasn't recorded at home."
There are some records of more recent fame recorded at home like Bon Iver's "For Emma, Forever Ago," and some of Sufjan Steven's earlier stuff that sounds incredible in part because they sound unique. Sufjan recorded "Seven Swans" at frickin 32K on a little roland digital recorder but it sounds fantastic! Bon Iver's record was ranked something like the 27th best CD of 2008!
When an artist tries to imitate a big expensive Nashville or NY/LA sound as opposed to embracing their limitations by going for "new as opposed to good," that's when records recorded at home sound crappy, at least that's my 2 cents.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think one of the biggest problems today is that so often "recorded at home" means "tried to sound like it wasn't recorded at home."

I agree with your post, but I'd take it (often, not always) a step further. It's so often not just trying to sound like "a pro recording", but trying to sound like a specific pro act or a specific stereotypical sound.

What made Motown or Nebraska and the like particularly salient was they were not try to sound like anyone else so much as they were either creating their own sound (Motown) or creating a sound the artist felt *appropriate to the material* instead of appropriate to a stereotype (Nebraska).

G.

 

[darrin_h2000]

This is Bob Ludwig after all...and if he says that some indie artists arent the best producers of raw product...Ill have to agree with him.

I found things like Nebraska to be something different and lofi...but I had allways thought I could do better...like if the Boss is going for something that sounded like he was doing it by the fire...I have a collection with all sorts of his home demos where I assume the emphisis on the material should be considered than the quality...really raw stuff.

 

[Massive Master]

I agree with your post, but I'd take it (often, not always) a step further. It's so often not just trying to sound like "a pro recording", but trying to sound like a specific pro act or a specific stereotypical sound.

What made Motown or Nebraska and the like particularly salient was they were not try to sound like anyone else so much as they were either creating their own sound (Motown) or creating a sound the artist felt *appropriate to the material* instead of appropriate to a stereotype (Nebraska).

G.

They were also recording on rather decent gear for the time by very experienced people who had an amazingly good handle on their core sounds (which is something that's VERY lacking these days).

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

They were also recording on rather decent gear for the time by very experienced people who had an amazingly good handle on their core sounds (which is something that's VERY lacking these days).

Well, "Nebraska" wasn't exactly recorded on great gear or under pristine conditions, but that even emphasizes your point about the core sounds. The material on Nebraska was *worth recording*.

Nebraska is a fairly controversial album; there's a lot of people who pooh-pooh it for a variety of reasons, some of them with valid points. But I would ask everybody one question: If you were sitting there in that hotel room (or wherever) when Springsteen was recording, would you have enjoyed what you were listening to? I'll bet that if everyone responded honestly, that at least 98% of you would have to answer that in the affirmative.

I think that's probably a good (not the only) litmus test to use when deciding what and when to record.

It certainly helps put an emphasis back on the performance and the music instead of putting the recording first. The beauty is, the recording will get the most benefit out of it; so in a way, it still *is* putting the recording first! The difference is the emphasis is on quality of recording, not upon the speed with which the recording is made.

G.

 

[cavedog101]

I'd like to reemphasis the points of 'The Performance' as well as the 'Core Sounds'.

Because the majority of the membership here are not only homerecordists but also musicians and have gotten to this point in their recording career out of interest in the process and also necessity, it becomes apparent there is a blurring for a lot of us towards the end of this process which has a proven set of parameters in order to become quality fulfilled.

Its good on so many levels that the 'old boy network' is taking such a hit yet its sad that in doing so, a lot of people will become unable to reap benefits from its loss of influence and technical expertise. I know from my experience that sitting in the control room of a great facility and watching the goigs on, lit up my senses like nothing before or after. It spurred me to see the process as a whole and to try and understand the basics of how its done.

A lot of people adhere to the rule that theres no rule...I am one one of those, but it is tempered by the very real facts of the physics of sound capture. Theres a lot a person can do in their little home batcaves.....great work in fact....but there are rules by which to bring these inspirations to a full and complete sounding end that if not followed, might very well leave the uneducated and distant listener cold to their brilliance.

I'm sure there are many examples of great works done in a lo-fi atmosphere. SOmeone cited 'Nebraska' as an example. Lo-fi yes in comparison to the many other works presented by that artist. But lo-fi on the capture only. I'm sure it was mastered in a quality room with a competent and experienced mastering engineer at the controls.

This makes my point. Mastering is a part of the process that a lot of homerecordists leave out of their thoughts while capturing their visions and inspirations. Yet it is a very important step in the polish and shine of a project. It can make things seem much much better than their possibly lo-fi beginnings could ever achieve.

I dont want to sound like I'm shilling for mastering houses.....And I dont consider myself qualified to master any project. When I put aside my musician hat and take up the recording engineer persona, I strive to make as clean and quality recordings as my gear will allow. And I do it with the final step in mind. Always look to the final outcome when making decisions throughout the process.

Its like the painter doing the floors in a vast room. Always look around for the entrance and the exit before putting on the first coat.

This is the entire point of getting core sounds that will translate. THIS is where every home recordist should concentrate their abilities. Then, when the performance is great and the material is inspired, there is nothing keeping the capture from 'jumpin off da tape' as we old farts used to say when there was tape.....Its still a great thing to achieve.

 

[Grahamrunsran]

amen!

[/QUOTE]Mastering is a part of the process that a lot of homerecordists leave out of their thoughts while capturing their visions and inspirations. Yet it is a very important step in the polish and shine of a project. It can make things seem much much better than their possibly lo-fi beginnings could ever achieve.
[/QUOTE]

Being a mastering engineer, I couldn't agree you more!!! With proper mastering, lofi can be pretty awesome. Take my Sufpan Steven's reference for example, in Mar/Aprl 09' TapeOp interview he attributes the fact that his homemade records sound good to his mastering engineer.

 

[Grahamrunsran]

yes yes yes!

I agree with your post, but I'd take it (often, not always) a step further. It's so often not just trying to sound like "a pro recording", but trying to sound like a specific pro act or a specific stereotypical sound.

What made Motown or Nebraska and the like particularly salient was they were not try to sound like anyone else so much as they were either creating their own sound (Motown) or creating a sound the artist felt *appropriate to the material* instead of appropriate to a stereotype (Nebraska).

G.

I totally agree Glen, it kills me how many artist spend so much of their time attempting to be someone else and imitate their heroes rather than finding their own voice. I love your comment. SO true.

 

[Grahamrunsran]

Berry Gordy=awesome.

They were also recording on rather decent gear for the time by very experienced people who had an amazingly good handle on their core sounds (which is something that's VERY lacking these days).

Amen to that. Berry Gordy was a genius! I just got done reading his autobiography and it's insane the lengths he went to to get those sounds. (ps, the original studio is still there in Detroit and it's now a museum. I HIGHLY recommend a trip there to everyone before they die. The energy is still palpable in those rooms.

 

[flatfinger]

I have to say that the thing that really impresses the hell out of me knowdays ( just my outlook latley ; always subject to change !) Is how anybody( those PRO"S!) can get so good as to work on a project for long hours and not suffer from habituation and the incredible way that our ears/brains can easily adjust to the overall sound of things .
I 've been reading Roey Izhaki's "mixing audio"
http://www.amazon.com/Mixing-Audio-Concepts-Practices-Tools/dp/0240520688?SubscriptionId=10YVF75G6G1XD1C83E82&tag=tvguideonli02-20&linkCode=sp1&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0240520688
And one of the first exercizes he suggest is to make a "mix tape " ( so to speak ) of 30 or 40 second snippets of various commercial tracks and listen to them back to back to back .

It is amazing the different spectral takes that are contrasted that you would'nt otherwise notice when you have been listening to an album for awhile .



The best trick I have learned ( at least for me , for now ) is to not work on the final tweaks of my mixes for to long of a stretch ...; take plenty of breaks or even try the next day . I have been dumbfounded at how I have missed the direction I took a mix after working for an hour or two , and , at how I was convinced I was going in the right direction , only to listen 24 hours later and end up thinking WTF .

Now I make versions with small tweaks , and save these in the naming scheme for the DAW .
I really need to set up a real time set up to get volume matched listens to references ( hard to do , since references will generally be maximised to the hilt , and your 2 buss mix shrinks in comparison .





Anyhow,
Hat's off to you guy's who can pull this gig off for a living !! Not quite as easy as it looks (sounds !)



.

 

[Massive Master]

This is where objective listening is so crucial - yet so "fragile" -- The ear hears what it hears at first. Then after a while, it hears what "it wants to hear" to some extent.

This is another reason I find presets to be useless.

For instance - And this is typical, everyday processing that I've gone over a thousand times when someone says "how do you master a song?" (which is a freaky question in the first place).

1) Hit PLAY.

2) Listen for a bit. 30 seconds maybe. Bounce around a little if possible (digital is nice for this).

2b) Mentally visualize (for lack of a better term) what the mix is asking for - What it needs to go from point "A" to point "B" -

3) Hit stop.

4) Set up what's in your head. A narrow cut here, a wide, shallow boost there, a side-only cut here, a mono-only cut there, compression settings (fast A/R, slow A/R, which unit, etc., keeping in mind how much gain reduction you'll want).

5) Hit PLAY again.

6) Set the threshold on the compressor (can't really do that in your head, but you can certainly establish rough A&R settings) and LISTEN again.

7) Tweak.

If the settings aren't 90% "there" then something is wrong. If the mix isn't pretty darn close to "point B" then something didn't happen.


People freak out a bit during attended sessions when I do that (personally, I thought everyone did that at one point). But if I have the track playing while I'm making those settings, I've already lost that objectivity by the time I'm ready to sit and listen again.

Obviously - I'm not talking about those "tweaks" I mentioned -- Sure, sometimes everything is 'right on' and I write down the settings and go to the next track. But 90% of the tweaking is done in 10% of the time (pretty much no matter what phase of the project you're in). Getting those "rough" settings shouldn't be guesswork... It should be second nature. But your ears/brain will work against you if you're not careful...

 

[grimtraveller]

I totally agree Glen, it kills me how many artist spend so much of their time attempting to be someone else and imitate their heroes rather than finding their own voice. I love your comment. SO true.

Well, in the beginning, many artists down the centuries have 'tried to emulate their heroes' in one way or another. It's a kind of inspiration. It often comes out in an idiosyncratic way that translates as originality and from there one progressively finds one's voice and leaves behind the initial inspiration. Mind you, I do agree that that isn't always the case and it varies from one genre to another.

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

One might even go so far as to say that almost *every* band starts out emulating their heroes ("influences"), or at least most every young band. Very, very few people start out with an original sound (heck, very very few ever come close to a truly "original sound").

And so, as home/hobby recordists, we very typically record bands' first few efforts, which almost by definition will be unoriginal, poor copies of one or two established bands' sounds, and because the band is likely in the stage of trying to emulate their heroes, they'll want the actual *sound* of their demo/ep to be as close as possible to the bands they're trying to emulate as well.

Combine this with the fact that the majority of young bands are still formed with the goal of getting signed to a record label, which further solidifies their obsession with sounding exactly like their hero bands that just got signed with ridiculous record deals, and you end up with exactly what we have & what we're talking about: average records sounding worse than ever. Which in some ways makes sense, as humans are naturally inclined to take the beaten/tried-and-true path, as it serves as a guiding light towards their ultimate goals. This is why so many of us (myself included) delve so deeply into every article, every forum post, every review of our favorite artists, engineers, producers, etc., and do our best to emulate what the pros are doing. In reality, the ones we end up reading about, are very likely (in my opinion) to almost always be the ones that, rather than trying to figure out how everybody else was doing something, instead were figuring it out for themselves. Figuring stuff out by yourself (apart from the rudimentary basics, of course) makes it several thousands of times more likely that you'll do something unique and original. If you end up stumbling upon something people like, maybe you'll end up on the other side of the metaphorical glass & be one of the ones read about and people try to emulate.

Formal education can teach you only what's already been done.


Or maybe I'm full of shit!