"that sound"

[rxfit06]

Question,... what is done to a commercial CD that gives it "that sound" ?

I own a small "at home" recording studio,.. and for the last year or so have been doing basic mastering for local artists. Understand I'm not beginning to believe that I have the room, or the gear to accomplish the end result of a true, qualified mastering engineer. I basically make demos sound better,.. or, more like a commercial CD.

My mastering chain includes Wavelab, the UAD-1 ultra pak, Waves platinum bundle,.. as well as the Portico 5043 & 5042, Aphex compellor & dominator II, with the Benchmark adc-1, and dac-1. I monitor with an older pair of Tannoy pbm8's. For sure not a ME's top choices, but they get the job done, and my clients are happy.

It is difficult to explain what I hear when I say , "that sound". To picture it, I would say the mixes of commercial cd's sound as if they have a thin layer of saran wrap covering the mix, .. only not taking away from the fidelity at all... making the entire mix sound as if it's kind of at arms length, not, IN YOUR FACE, so to speak. Does that make sense?


For instance, when I track in my studio,.. I can get some very professional results,.. yet I can hear a definate difference in the end result. To illustrate, when I play back a mix of mine,.. it sounds like the vocalist,for example, is sitting right in front of me,.. not "behind a silk screen", like the vocalist on a commercial cd sounds to me.

When I first started to explore this, I assumed it was some form of compression,.. creating the "glue" , so to speak. The Portico 5043 does indeed provide the glue, yet not "that sound".

You might say the Portico gear isn't high end enough for the results I'm looking for. Well, I have a friend who owns some high end gear. Namely the Neve 33609, as well as the Manley vari-mu,..to name a few, and we still can't achieve "that sound",.. and this guy has some of the best ears I know of. Even the music that was tracked with his Neve pre's, telefunkin and other high end mics, along with the aforementioned compression, still doesn't end up with "that sound". The end result is indeed VERY impressive to say the least,.. but still, not "that sound". This would lead me to believe that what I'm hearing is not done at the tracking stage.

Moreover, I've noticed that even the music of the 60's & 70's has "that sound", at least to my ears. I can even detect on some of the older recordings where certain tracks by themself sound pretty bad,..yet the song/album still has, ... you guessed it,.."that sound".

I've read Bob Katz's book, as well as others, and am aware of the basic gear, signal chains, etc. Let me also mention that I visited another studio buddy of mine once and listned to one of his mixes. It was, IMO, pretty good, but not better than what I can do. After I heard the mastered cd,..well, let's just say it now sounded like a commercial cd. I don't know what else, if anything was done at the mix stage, as I didn't get the chance to discuss it with the owner/mix engineer,.. but the end result I heard from one of the band members was impressive to say the least.

So, if it's not achieved at the tracking or mixing stage, I'm thinking it's gotta be done at the mastering stage. With most of the ME's stating that much of their gear is un-colored (for obvious reasons ) ,.. what is it that is imparting "that sound" on commercial cd's ?

Marc

[MASSIVE Master]

"That sound" is a combination of the entire process - But it starts with the core sounds and how they're captured. Then it's cared for and enhanced during mixing and further enhanced (perhaps) during the mastering phase.

[Ben F]

Good question, I used to wonder about this myself. It mostly comes down to the recording and mix. It took me around 5 years as a mix engineer to get 'that sound', and it really comes down to experience. Gear is important but technique and experience is number 1. Mastering, of course, is the final polish.

The arms length sound you describe on the vocals to me sounds like properly done reverb. If you are using a decent mic, preamp, and compressor (which it sounds like you are) then quality reverb in small amounts will make vocals and other instruments sit or float within a mix. It also helps give a smooth coating to instruments and can 'glue' the sounds together as a cohesive whole. Psycoacoustics is an amazing thing and you can trick peoples ears into believing almost anything. I used to use a lexicon but in the last couple of years use altiverb, it's flexible and sounds very close. The lexicon 480 or 224 plates, chambers and ambience work well. It's then a matter of using EQ to blend the reverb with the vocals so it adds depth and colour without being obvious.

Also try rolling off the top end if you are after a 60s vibe, generally above 12 or 15khz. Most of the transformers used in those recordings had a limited frequency response.

[Kiwiburger]

I'm wondering if it's about transient control ... by the time a mix is mastered, the transients are tamed. Until then, the sound is more in-your-face and present - but not necessarily controlled.

IMO - processes that remove transients also make the sound recede into the distance a little (possibly because air is a natural transient compressor, and our brain interprets this effect as distance).

Dealing with the transients allows the level to come up, including reverb levels - so maybe that's another reason.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by rxfit06

I'm thinking it's gotta be done at the mastering stage. With most of the ME's stating that much of their gear is un-colored (for obvious reasons ) ,.. what is it that is imparting "that sound" on commercial cd's ?

Marc

Nothing is uncolored for one thing. But even clean-ish gear can push up what's in the mix already, clarify it, make certain things more clear, others more in your face. Maybe subtle or not so subtle a difference.

Nice color gear works too, if you know what the range is, and what you need. I think of adding colors always in terms of harmonic distortion. There is a balance of distortion, for all music, that's the aim. A ME has options to balance and push what's there already in terms of distortion.

It's really about human potential ... even a great mix can 99% of the time be bettered in a 3rd step. Even if it existed in a vacuum, which it doesn't.

[yareck]

Originally Posted by rxfit06

with the Benchmark adc-1, and dac-1

Consider replacing your Benchmarks with Lavry Blues.

Benchmark DAC has boost at 150 Hz and therefore mixes are not clear. Replacing it with Lavry DA or Apogee DA should be good idea. I don't know how good is ADC, but I heard it's not as good as DAC, so better replace it it too. Lavry AD will bring you this "commercial" shine over the mix (maybe that's you're asking for?). You may clip AD more or less depending on a music style, to get more of that effect.

I would highly recommend adding high quality DA also to your your listening environment.

[soundroid]

Originally Posted by yareck

Consider replacing your Benchmarks with Lavry Blues.

Benchmark DAC has boost at 150 Hz and therefore mixes are not clear. Replacing it with Lavry DA or Apogee DA should be good idea. I don't know how good is ADC, but I heard it's not as good as DAC, so better replace it it too. Lavry AD will bring you this "commercial" shine over the mix (maybe that's you're asking for?). You may clip AD more or less depending on a music style, to get more of that effect.

I would highly recommend adding high quality DA also to your your listening environment.

No disrespect yarek, but updating his already commendable converters are not gonna really make the difference he's after I feel. And as for the Lavrys giving a mix a 'commercial shine'...well that's giving them a little too much credit(and this is coming from someone who uses Lavry golds) I'm not discounting their value, it's just that good converters are only one small link in the chain.
I think Massive Master was spot on. It's the combination of everything done right in the entire process; from pre production right through to mastering. Asking converters to give you that commercial sound is really like saying there's a magic bullet to getting 'that sound'. It's no way that easy. no free lunches sorry. just a lot of hard work combined with decent gear, good ears and preferably a little experience.
The sum of all parts will get you that sound.

[yareck]

Originally Posted by soundroid

No disrespect yarek, but updating his already commendable converters are not gonna really make the difference he's after I feel. And as for the Lavrys giving a mix a 'commercial shine'...well that's giving them a little too much credit(and this is coming from someone who uses Lavry golds) I'm not discounting their value, it's just that good converters are only one small link in the chain.
I think Massive Master was spot on. It's the combination of everything done right in the entire process; from pre production right through to mastering. Asking converters to give you that commercial sound is really like saying there's a magic bullet to getting 'that sound'. It's no way that easy. no free lunches sorry. just a lot of hard work combined with decent gear, good ears and preferably a little experience.
The sum of all parts will get you that sound.

Yes, that was simplification, but converters look like very important. I've found that beetween the good DA/AD even cheap hardware can make wonders sometimes...ok IMO.

I'm not saying also that Benchmarks are bad converters. They are obviously very good. Anyway with Benchmark I thought I have bad room acoustic with too much 150-200 Hz, which I thought was caused by too small room. After replacing DAC-1 with Lavry DA10 all problems were gone. Funny thing, I've also found a post on PSW where someone describes exactly the same situation... so I thought it may be worth mentioning..

[Silvertone]

That sound is in the head and ears of the mastering engineer. It's not the gear really.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by yareck

Consider replacing your Benchmarks with Lavry Blues.

Benchmark DAC has boost at 150 Hz and therefore mixes are not clear. Replacing it with Lavry DA or Apogee DA should be good idea. I don't know how good is ADC, but I heard it's not as good as DAC, so better replace it it too. Lavry AD will bring you this "commercial" shine over the mix (maybe that's you're asking for?). You may clip AD more or less depending on a music style, to get more of that effect.

I would highly recommend adding high quality DA also to your your listening environment.

Not sure where you are getting your information from but as an owner of the DAC-1 and the ADC-1 I can tell you they are both ruler flat in both the D to A and A to D conversions. There is NO boost at 150 Hz unless something else in your chain is adding it.


tutt

[Adam Dempsey]

Question,... what is done to a commercial CD that gives it "that sound" ?

It's definitely the sum of all parts and experience. Processing? Being only as good as your weakest link in the signal path, keeping it minimal, the insertion of devices suitably sounding for the project at hand (eg, use of transformer, tubes, ICs or all digital). That, and careful adjustment of compression (if any) parameters for its sound rather than for level. I do feel that decent headroom, gain staging and maintained high freq response play a major role.

[yareck]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

Not sure where you are getting your information from but as an owner of the DAC-1 and the ADC-1 I can tell you they are both ruler flat in both the D to A and A to D conversions. There is NO boost at 150 Hz unless something else in your chain is adding it.


tutt

Maybe in a rack chain there's no such audible difference? I don't know.

There was a difference before my 801's. I just simply replaced those units, nothing more. Benchmark is very smooth, has very nice mid/highs but it sounded muddy at 150-200 Hz while Lavry not. I've tested also Mytek DA and there was no such problem, very nice bass and highs, smoother than Lavry but less details.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by yareck

Maybe in a rack chain there's no such audible difference? I don't know.

There was a difference before my 801's. I just simply replaced those units, nothing more. Benchmark is very smooth, has very nice mid/highs but it sounded muddy at 150-200 Hz while Lavry not. I've tested also Mytek DA and there was no such problem, very nice bass and highs, smoother than Lavry but less details.

Run some tones thought the system and see what is happening. The Benchmark stuff is realy FLAT. Something else is happening because the Benchmark neither adds anything or takes anything away. Maybe some interface with your power amp or powered speakers but just replacing the Benchmark with the Lavry CANNOT make any difference in the 150Hz region.

Best of luck in your quest.....

[stellar]

I am in a similar boat as you; farily decent home studio with some nice gear and still not getting that "commercial" sound. but recently I have wondered if it is not "in my head"....in that working on the mix or master really opens up to your ears to it, and you don't "hear" it the same in the car as you would someone else's mix. this is just a hypothesis and hopefully some of the pros can confirm or deny this. If its not that is must be the overall spectral balance and how people perceive it. i.e., the overall balance between the lows, low mids, upper mids, and highs, on a broad basis.

[yareck]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

just replacing the Benchmark with the Lavry CANNOT make any difference in the 150Hz region.

That's not only my observation. Although this guy didn't name it "too much at 150 Hz", this was my idea, but he is talking about the same thing: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ind.../0/#msg_158768

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

Run some tones thought the system and see what is happening. The Benchmark stuff is realy FLAT. Something else is happening because the Benchmark neither adds anything or takes anything away. Maybe some interface with your power amp or powered speakers but just replacing the Benchmark with the Lavry CANNOT make any difference in the 150Hz region.

Best of luck in your quest.....

I doubt it as well. I have 3 Benchmarks that have lived in two different rooms so far and never had a problem. That the ADC is less accurate than the DAC then ....... well........
Do a transfer from tap and switch on the fly man.......
Liking a converter better than another one is fine, but i'd seriously doubt any of the modern ones could cause such trouble in your room response.

[yareck]

Maybe someone who did compare those converters and has some considerations?

[jdg]

now offically offtopic.
did a A/B/X shootout with the lavry/benchmark/mytek DACs (this was before the benchmark ADC was released).

they were all so stunningly similar. but 3 engineers consistantly picked the same converter as their fav. (strangly, the ones they already owned)
sure they were different... at most 4% different.
and 150hz "bump" was never a comment for the benchmark.

maybe your unit was faulty :(

[yareck]

Originally Posted by jdg

maybe your unit was faulty :(

Maybe. This option although unbeliveable should be considered seriously.

[stellar]

I was thinking about this some more...I don't think its compression because there are plenty of albums without compression that still have that 'sound'....

[jdg]

can we hear one of your productions? a small sample might make it easier then talking abstractly about an ever-moving target

[Unclenny]

So...back to the question.....

Years...and ears.

There are so many tools for us to use now that it is no longer a matter of gear. I think it's all about gaining experience and knowing what you are looking for. All of you Masters out there know what I'm talking about....I'm just getting it.....

For instance...I just took a new tune that sounded wrong...too intense at 2K -5K. I was motivated by Kiwi's thing about transients. So I put a C1 (I'm a pretty basic ITB guy) across the 2 buss and set it just for that range. Then I cranked it until it SOUNDED right. So what if I was getting 10 db GR occasionally!

It actually sounded right.

For me...that was That Sound.

[Resonance]

My honest to God guess is that the L2 is "that sound." If he's using the UAD-1, he's probably using the Precision Limiter, which has quite a different quality to it.

Brian Hazard
Resonance Mastering
www.resonancemastering.com

[soundroid]

Originally Posted by Resonance

My honest to God guess is that the L2 is "that sound." If he's using the UAD-1, he's probably using the Precision Limiter, which has quite a different quality to it.

Brian Hazard
Resonance Mastering
www.resonancemastering.com

I'm sorry dude, but you're kidding right?

[recall]

Originally Posted by stellar

I am in a similar boat as you; farily decent home studio with some nice gear and still not getting that "commercial" sound. but recently I have wondered if it is not "in my head"....in that working on the mix or master really opens up to your ears to it, and you don't "hear" it the same in the car as you would someone else's mix. this is just a hypothesis and hopefully some of the pros can confirm or deny this. If its not that is must be the overall spectral balance and how people perceive it. i.e., the overall balance between the lows, low mids, upper mids, and highs, on a broad basis.

Me too, I produce bands on a freelance home/mobile studio basis. I feel like I'm constantly strething things as far as they'll go with the limited gear I have. I find it really hard t olisten to the music I work on after finishing a project. I think there must be some kind of reason why A/Bing between your work and others is difficult.

1.You (or me) don't know all or any of the processes involved in getting the commerical tracks mix.
2.You know every damn thing about your mix down to when to look for the vocal edit in bar 37!

The longer you invest in a project the harder it gets to take it outside the vacuum.

From now on I try to put everything I can into my work and take praise from people I trust as the basis that what I am doing is worthwile.

Music exists in myriad forms, and whilst our jobs are to fine tune things and engineer,m our primary role is not to produce records that conform to ISO-type standards but to translate emotion to a disc or an Mp3 or whatever.

....Just a few things I have been thinking about.


This is not to say that A/B ing is not really useful - it is.

[Resonance]

Originally Posted by soundroid

I'm sorry dude, but you're kidding right?

Hehe... I wish I were! But seriously, it has its own identity and its ubiquitous. Can you name another piece of gear, from tracking through mastering, that's more likely to be part of the signal chain? If there's any common denominator among today's CDs, it's the L2. For better or, in my opinion, for worse.

Originally Posted by rxfit06

It is difficult to explain what I hear when I say , "that sound". To picture it, I would say the mixes of commercial cd's sound as if they have a thin layer of saran wrap covering the mix, .. only not taking away from the fidelity at all... making the entire mix sound as if it's kind of at arms length, not, IN YOUR FACE, so to speak. Does that make sense?

ARC?

[soundroid]

Originally Posted by Resonance

Hehe... I wish I were! But seriously, it has its own identity and its ubiquitous. Can you name another piece of gear, from tracking through mastering, that's more likely to be part of the signal chain? If there's any common denominator among today's CDs, it's the L2. For better or, in my opinion, for worse.
ARC?

Sorry. I really have to disagree.
The whole idea of chasing the magic 'silver bullet' to get 'that sound' is over rated.
I still maintain to get a pro sound involves getting it right at all stages of production.
You should also realize that louds of top flight MEs don't own or use an L2. so how do they get 'that sound?'. hmmm.....

[Resonance]

I agree completely that there's no "silver bullet", or even "that sound." To my ears, there's no single quality that all professional recordings have in common. I'm just making my best guess as to what Marc is hearing. I don't know of any professional MEs that use the Precision Limiter, and it sounds quite different from both the L2 and the 6000s Brickwall Limiter, so that's one big difference in his signal chain that I can point to.

[bluecouchstudio]

Originally Posted by yareck

That's not only my observation. Although this guy didn't name it "too much at 150 Hz", this was my idea, but he is talking about the same thing: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ind.../0/#msg_158768

i wouldn't say it was too much 150 Hz. i would just say the mids to low-mids were clearer on the Lavry, which made the bottom easier to hear. i didn't run tones through it, so i can't quantify any differences.

that being said, a friend of mine is a really busy mastering engineer and he owns the Lavry Blue. there is a certain sound that comes with a Lavry which i like. but i think the reason alot of MEs own Lavry's is because they clip so well on the ADC. i don't know much about the Benchmark ADC and you have to find stuff that works for you, but there is a reason that alot of the top-end MEs use Lavry Blues and Golds.

on the "bad unit", the funny thing is that the 1st Lavry i heard sounded terrible. i'm not sure what happened, but it just didn't sound good. after i posted about not liking it, Priscilla emailed me and asked me to give it another shot. my "2nd shot" demo never left my room. it sounded amazing. the thing that makes it funny was that my ME friend had just listened to the 1st demo in his studio and it sounded fine. but something about that unit didn't work well in my studio (not sure what or why). we listened to my 2nd version again in his studio and there was a slight change, but not as much as in my studio.

sorry this is off-topic, but i wanted to explain my post better.

--
lance

[bcgood]

Space and air in the form of widening the stereo image to that "sweet spot" as well as delay and reverberation, all in very small doses. Psychoacoustics quest que cest, fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better run run run run run run run away!

bcgood