Commercial sounding vs. demo sounding

[ixnys]

What makes a song sound commercial as opposed to demoish?

I own some of the same high quality gear as professional studios, but in the end my song productions don't sound as high end.

Gear I own:
PT HD3, Distressors, LA2A, Avalon AD2022, Millenia STT-1, Apogee PSX 100se, Neuman M49, BLUE Bottle, BLUE Blueberries, KM184's, Genelecs, as well as high quality instruments.

So why is it when I listen to commerical released songs they sound so much clearer and defined. It seems like it's a higher quality recording. Yet I too am using professional high quality instruments,pre's, and converters?

I'm just always striving to get a more commercial sound. Is it possible? I am working all in the box for the post part. So where does "the commerical aura" lie? Is it in the mixing..the mastering?

Arrangement, performance, and tracking aside. There is this gap between demo sounding and commercial sounding. It's this hi-fidelity factor. I know there are a number of factors that contribute ot the final product, but I just wanted to get some feedback from people who work on commercial productions.

Basically what seperates a demo sounding song to a commercial sounding one.

[stealthbalance]

by what you are describing , its all about the mix.
i will assume that your recording , arrangement , tuning , tighness of the performances , key , etc etc are all at least o.k. or good.
the gear you have is certainly great. when i mix totally in the box ( pro tools hd4), i get the same strong results as when im on an ssl - so you cant look to the in the box scenario being weak. when i was just starting out i would ask myself the same question - i used wonderful mics on good desks and pres , great tape machines , great instruments , and i was totally confused as to why my stuff sounded so tired and weak. i felt that as long as i used the best stuff that it would sound the best , correct ??? i was totally wrong thinking that the gear does almost all the work. its about what you do with the sounds , blends and balances. i found that to get that great sound of the records that i admired , that i had to use sometimes very extreme settings on my compressors and eq. eq was a very hard thing for me to understand at first. then it all of a sudden clicked. i think that the one thing that helped me the most was to forget about what proper engineering was. i was first around engineers that were old school - and believed in stuff like if you have to add more than 2 db of any frequency , then change the mike. or that you should never go over 3 db of compression ever. these are not bad rules but in general dont really apply most of the time. also , subtractive eq is a major part of mixing in my book , and takes a while to master without destroying your sound. also for me figuring out how to use verbs and delays and effects was a big thing - i studied records under headphones for years listening for that stuff. just keep at it and compare your work to albums that you like the sound of. also , if you can , maybe you could hire or sit in on a mix with someone that you really admire - dont say a word but absorb every move they make. every ride. everything. this could possibly rock your world more than you can imagine. MVHO
s

[jazzius II]

If you want to discount talent, performance and experience (a mistake, but for the sake of argument)

IMHO, what you're talking about is analog processing.....specifically, mixing to 1/2 inch.....running your music through top mastering gear (with the ears to match).......analog summing on a good console.......pristine analog signal paths...ummm, anyone else?

[RichT]

Originally posted by jazzius II
If you want to discount talent, performance and experience (a mistake, but for the sake of argument)

IMHO, what you're talking about is analog processing.....specifically, mixing to 1/2 inch.....running your music through top mastering gear (with the ears to match).......analog summing on a good console.......pristine analog signal paths...ummm, anyone else?

No, Stealth had it right.

It's about mix tricks and tips and overall the art of mixing. Not the summing.

Summing can't save a shit mix.

[jazzius II]

Originally posted by RichT
No, Stealth had it right.

It's about mix tricks and tips and overall the art of mixing. Not the summing.

Summing can't save a shit mix.

Sorry chief, i heard your MP3......you don't have a clue.

[RichT]

Originally posted by jazzius II
Sorry chief, i heard your MP3......you don't have a clue.

Ok....

Let's try it this way:

If a mix is shit - that is the sum of the parts still adds up to crap, other than making it wider and warmer - summing does not make a shit mix not shit.

Thanks for your comments on my MP3 (which one by the way?)

[drundall]

I think what you're hearing is the difference of a pro engineer by trade who has been doing it for years and knows what choices to make during tracking and mixing. Gear doesn't make records. When you witness a great engineer making a very cool sounding record with "substandard" gear you'll realize what I mean.
Sitting in will drastically improve your game.

[jazzius II]

Originally posted by RichT
Ok....


Thanks for your comments on my MP3 (which one by the way?)

check your PM's

[jazzius II]

Of course you're all right in saying it's down to the skills of the guilty parties, but if you carefully read the first post, the guy is talking about something very specific......the sheen, depth, space and fatness of the top productions.....

.....almost all the top productions get "kissed" by analog at some point.......it's not so important where, but it is important.

[ixnys]

Originally posted by jazzius II
Of course you're all right in saying it's down to the skills of the guilty parties, but if you carefully read the first post, the guy is talking about something very specific......the sheen, depth, space and fatness of the top productions.....

.....almost all the top productions get "kissed" by analog at some point.......it's not so important where, but it is important.

Yeah Jazzius understands what I'm talking about. Like for instance, I just was listening to the song "Southern Girl" by Incubus off their new album and it just has that aura. The depth and clarity. But for the most part, most commercial albums have this. It's just that "thing" that makes it sound like a record.

My own productions are good, but you can tell they are not commerical. I'm wondering, does that "it" come from the engineering/tracking stage or from the mix and mastering stage.

So that's why I put arrangement and performance aside. Basically let's say a song was tracked and then given to me to mix at my studio, and then to a professional mixer as well. When I went to mix it, would I end up with results comparable to what I'm already getting? Would I still be complaining about it not sounding commercial because of my own mixing talent? Or would it sound better than most of my productions because that "aura" was tracked better? Am I confusing you?

You could write a book on this topic but I will just add one comment.

One elusive thing to many home / semi pre recordists is a slick sounding 'top end' or high frequency sheen.

Mastering engineers pay VERY careful attention to this and folks mixing often use high price tag items to get some of it into their recording & mixes

GML 8200 eq
Manley Massive Passive
Cranesong Ibis

etc etc

Perhaps you could record absolutely flat and even mix with little additive HF eq but come mastering - out will come the mastering engineers HF boost and careful compression, limiting and often digital maximization.

I remember listening to some new mixes from a producer I know and worked with (a long time back) , Adrian Sherwood and remarking to a mutual friend of ours "wow! it sounds SO slick!" the top end was really shiny and commercial, not as raw as I remembered his sound being, and the friend said, "well, he's had that studio a long time now and has been developing his sound" - that seemed reasonable

.........the point I am trying to get across, it takes time.

[jazzius II]

jules is absolutely right.....the best sounding stuff to come out of my studio always sounds a little dull when it comes in......so i can pump a load of hi-quality top end on with the Ibis...but if it's already sounding agressive and harsh in the hi's there's nothing left to do.....probably more likely some de-essing to remove the harshness.....

......but of course people don't want to mix dull........they want to have that bright sheen in the mix....so out comes the plugins, multiband etc etc and viola, harsh hi-end......

.......i think a good way to go would be to strap an eq (plug, analog whatever) to the mix-buss, but when it comes to the final pass, do one without eq (and compression) as well.....5 minutes xtra is all it takes......but some people are addicted to 2-buss processing like crack!....

I'm sure the best mixers (people like Dexter Simmons) can get that sheen just right in the mix......but it's a rare talent

[Teacher]

ixnys:

after I heard e-cue's rebuttle in the mp3 show and tell forum where he tracked, arranged and mixed a song in Pro tools free on his lap top in 90minutes, i am conviced now that the 'commercial sounds' definitly has more to do with experience then gear as well as having the sounds sounding good when they are getting tracked....YMMV

[NeoVXR]

In Germany, there are many national top 10 sellings, that don't sound "professional" at all, the way it is described here! But the industry is the same major players. Could that be by purpose?
It may be mixing, but I think mastering is the bigger deal here, I tried some experiments. I can never make an Xtina or Incubus or so sound better (my humble taste), but this stuff quite noticeably.
Voices sound more professional, if mastering takes care of them. Singers are perceived as being "better".

I think also, that the commercial sound that ixny is after, is a matter of style and listening habits, and does not just define perfection.
I am sure it can be analyzed which are the fashionable effects of current genres. Maybe there is some "Coca Cola" formula/receipt ?

But most important is very detailed work, to enhance the strengths of the artist (or the band sound), and hide the flaws, and so taking part in the artistic process, besides the technical aspects that are written everywhere.
To me it seems, that some do only technical masternig, other do kind of "cultural" mastering.

So it may depend much on the time you spend on the thing. When a top star takes half a year to record her album, she may also work two weeks on mastering, together with an engineer whom she knows very close.

[juniorhifikit]

There's a reason why the Jack Lord Wallaces get paid $10K per song to mix.

You really can't discount the talent.














While you're at it though, get yourself a good drum sub squasher and a good 2 mix squisher and see if that gets you closer to Incubus.

[initialsBB]

Read Charles' Columns on this page, starting at the bottom and working your way up. http://www.digidesign.com/digizine/a...ng_archive.cfm
Listen to all of the mp3 examples and particularly the first rough mix vs. the final product. This did a lot for me to illuminate that difference between a "demo" kind of a mix and a Record.

[Jose Mrochek]

I posted a question on another thread that no one answered yet. I don't believe the problem is in the mix. As the thread starter stated before, if he has a good arrangement and well played instruments, you should just move the faders around a bit and you should get a pretty good mix. I don't think the record sound he is talking about has anything to do with mixing. Tracking and performance, and ARRANGEMENT is the most important part to me. If this wasn't the case, why does a vocal played with acoustic guitar on 2 tracks is very easy to sound like a record ? And as soon as you start adding instruments things start to get fuzzy. I think this happens because things where not played or put in the places where they should come in. And this is why top producers get 300k for an album. I asked in another thread if , the mastering process makes the difference. I think it does. I don't know.

[initialsBB]

Jose, you should probably play your mixes for a mastering engineer and get his thoughts on what he can do for you before you decide if that's the way to go. And you and Ixnys should both consider posting a track to the show & tell forum if possible to get some more specific feedback. Maybe it is only mastering you need. Or maybe your stuff already sounds great and you simply need some fresh ears to confirm it for you. On the other hand if there are things that could be done to improve the mixes you don't want to spend several thousand dollars on mastering only to find out the end result still isn't what you were looking for.

By the way, below are direct links to the two mp3s I mentioned from Charles' column. To my untrained ears the first one already sounds like a good, finished mix. But the second mp3 shows that extra level of work that really makes it sound like a record. Obviously a lot of this is a function of what style of music you're doing, but I don't think it's accurate to say that "you should just move the faders around a bit and you should get a pretty good mix." Or rather it's accurate in the sense that the mix will only be "pretty good" unless you really put in the work to make it excellent and fulfill your vision of the song.

The Unprocessed Tracks
http://www.digidesign.com/digizine/a...ove_NoProc.mp3

The Finished Mix
http://www.digidesign.com/digizine/a...inishedMix.mp3

[stealthbalance]

ixnys-

as mastering and summing and tape and blah blah blah can definately give that last bit of depth and clarity and volume and who cares what else , it will only put a bandage on it - however your mix might take to drastic mastering just perfectly and you will be very pleased. for me i like to think of mastering as adding the last 5% of greatness and nothing more - if anything i more often hope that mastering doesnt destroy my mixing and i show up more as a watch dog to make sure of it. also the more hammering and whatever a mastering guy does to your record , the more your balances and effects and delays will change - and i mean change dramatically. it usually the old school ME that will really listen to the balances of a record and respect them - and take great care to not change the record into something else. this is all about the feel of a record.
why not just take the plunge and hire a mastering guy to master only one or two songs that you have done - it will answer your question immediately . i think that you will find that polishing a turd can only work sometimes. then go back and figure out how to make your mixes better in the first place - because thats what will happen anyway. the experience will make you a better mixer.
as for mixers saying that they get back their stuff froma ME with more top end and that it sounds better - id be ashamed as a mixer to not complete a mix sound as i thought it should be. i want the mix to sound finished , or im not done yet.
also jazzius is correct in saying that a pristine analog path and tape can really give an added depth and gelling of it all - and sound quite expensive. again , its the way you use effects and eq that give stuff depth of field big time.
hire a mastering cat - choose someone whos mastered more than one record you love the sound of - cause chances are its the mixing you love , not the mastering.
good luck
s

[jazzius II]

ixnys...from reading your posts it's clear that you lack experience......this experience will take you 98% of the way there, and that xtra 2% is luxury stuff.....it does make a difference but it's only subtle compared to basic stuff like not over-compressing, puting energy in the wrong places, using the audio space that you have before u to the fullest...

just keep plugging away, keep your ears open and your mind enquiring, don't take anyones word for anything till you've heard it yourself (won't make you any friends but will make you a good engineer) .....learn how to recognize distortion and use it to your advantage.....

[BevvyB]

Distortion is our friend

[ixnys]

I've only been recording for about a little more than 2 years. My latest productions far surpass my earlier productions. I feel I learn from each song I do, and my goal is to keep on improving my recording and mixing techniques. So I'm just trying to learn from my own mistakes as well as from others here on this forum. Not neccessarily their mistakes, but how they learned to improve their own recording and mixing techniques and how they started to take their songs to the next level.

I'm always in search of production and editing tips. How have YOU learned from your own experiences to make your songs better the next time around? For example, now I pay more attention to a lot more things when I'm recording. I make sure that the timing is good, drum hits are consistent, everything is in tune, etc.

However, back to my original question. I can sing a vocal through a great mic,pre, and compressor. It sounds clear and the performance is good, but it lacks that fullness and magical factor on a commercial release. This aura must be put in during mixing/mastering right?

[jahluv supreme]

Pardon me for intruding but this is my second post to gearslutz and am very thankful to be amongst you talented individuals. It's just amazing how much information is available here. Anyway, with that said I feel compelled to mention that I agree with some of the opinions here about mastering and high quality analog. A ME with a good reputation will always make your product sound better in my opinion. I always insist that my clients (and friends)save money for good mastering...It puts that final sheen and sound of a "record" and catches things I may have missed. In my experience with demo sounding vs. professional I have found that the room makes a world of difference. Well recorded acoustic guitar or drum tracks done at home rarely sound as good as ones done in the "big room" with proper acoustics and surfaces. My snare tones never sound as good when recorded in my project studio although I have pretty nice outboard pres and a decent sized room. My point is to not underestimate the influence of the room on the sonic outcome of a vocal, guitar, etc. Indeed, experience and talent play a huge role in getting that "pro commercial" sound. It's the EARS. Just my 2cents.

Best!
Chris

[juniorhifikit]

At most of the mastering sessions I've done at Bernie Grundman and the like, the engineer did almost nothing other than boost the level and maybe a nip and tuck of less than a dB. If your mix doesn't sound done, it's not done (IMHO). Just leave the "maximizing" to the pro's.

If you record your favorite record into protools via any converters the mix will still sound like your favorite record..

Of course analog summing helps and so does outboard gear etc...
and good converters

just like having a nice pre helps a good mic

but at the end of the day the source is more important than any other part of the chain

Also at the end of the day guys that are experienced use that experience to know what they are after before the chase.

Go to your local record store and study what good music sounds like

Dont just listen, ANALYZE What are the drums doing, the vocal the guitar etc.. What is the overall mix like think about ffx, compression and frequency ranges. (this will grow to the point where you never just listen for pleasure again in life). No progress without sacrifice! If you want to learn you gotta study. works in school and this is where you are IN CLASS

ONce you have a picture of what you are after. Keep that picture in mind and apply it when tracking. Don't be afraid to be extreme or track flat for safety and re process

This is a trial and error business and you are at an advantage because you have capable gear

read and ask questions. Post MP3's for feedback and keep studying. The Lord helps those who help themselves
IF it is for you to be good at this, put in the work and it will happen.

Learn your compressors back and forwards. and also your eq's
Plugins are not the best things in the world but they are damn good for gaining experience that you wouldn't get or be able to afford if they didn't exist.

Also, DONT buy a single extra piece of gear. YOur gear now surpasses your talent. Until your talent catches up it's pointless to spend money

Decide what type of sound you want to go for (for me it's a combination of good hip hop (read Natural Born Killers DRe/Ice Cube) and Old school (STevie wonder Ribbon in the sky and Al Greene "simply beautiful"

once you know some recordings well, pick a song of yours with similiar elements and turn the CD lower than your mix (to account for mastering boo

If you record your favorite record into protools via any converters the mix will still sound like your favorite record..

Of course analog summing helps and so does outboard gear etc...
and good converters

just like having a nice pre helps a good mic

but at the end of the day the source is more important than any other part of the chain

Also at the end of the day guys that are experienced use that experience to know what they are after before the chase.

Go to your local record store and study what good music sounds like

Dont just listen, ANALYZE What are the drums doing, the vocal the guitar etc.. What is the overall mix like think about ffx, compression and frequency ranges. (this will grow to the point where you never just listen for pleasure again in life). No progress without sacrifice! If you want to learn you gotta study. works in school and this is where you are IN CLASS

ONce you have a picture of what you are after. Keep that picture in mind and apply it when tracking. Don't be afraid to be extreme or track flat for safety and re process

This is a trial and error business and you are at an advantage because you have capable gear

read and ask questions. Post MP3's for feedback and keep studying. The Lord helps those who help themselves
IF it is for you to be good at this, put in the work and it will happen.

Learn your compressors back and forwards. and also your eq's
Plugins are not the best things in the world but they are damn good for gaining experience that you wouldn't get or be able to afford if they didn't exist.

Also, DONT buy a single extra piece of gear. YOur gear now surpasses your talent. Until your talent catches up it's pointless to spend money

Decide what type of sound you want to go for (for me it's a combination of good hip hop (read Natural Born Killers DRe/Ice Cube) and Old school (STevie wonder Ribbon in the sky and Al Greene "simply beautiful"

once you know some recordings well, pick a song of yours with similiar elements and turn the CD lower than your mix (to account for mastering boost) and attempt to match


I know I've rambled, but there should be some good info somewhere in here

[stealthbalance]

Originally posted by ixnys
[
However, back to my original question. I can sing a vocal through a great mic,pre, and compressor. It sounds clear and the performance is good, but it lacks that fullness and magical factor on a commercial release. This aura must be put in during mixing/mastering right? [/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------

i give up

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by stealthbalance
------------------------------------------------------------------

i give up

i dont blame you one fukking bit. your first post was brilliant only to be bent over and fukked by the next poster... and then point missed by the inquirer. shame really.