Clarity and depth of the 70's vs DAW and hard drive: Is it possible...

[loopy]

All of the above!!!!

I'll add that not all of the 70's stuff is great.
You can hear a lot of DBX pumping on some recordings.

Now where did I put my Aphex "Get Aurally Excited" TeeShirt !!!

I think I wore that one out

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by mobius.media

"Clarity and depth of the 70s" is too vague to speculate on. But if it's "analog tape sound of the 70s" you're after, tape is still the only way you'll get it.

I agree.

Two main differences between 70's and today (for me):

1. pushed up, squashing mastering of the era makes things ugly - no headroom, no breathing, less clarity, especially when played back loud - it is loud already in the "silent" volume postition

2. tape compression and saturation for the percussive elements in the 70's, mostly missing today

I was wondering exactly the same about smoothness and clarity of percussion and bass in some Cheech and Chong soundtrack songs, themes some time ago.

Later I had a chance to record percussion and bass to tape for the first time and voila - the "cultured" sound was there...

I think it is the combination of tamed transients, slight euphonic saturation that makes things more audible, but not with extra volume and slightly limited frequency range in a natural way - nowadays everything takes up a full spectrum - ok, you can eq accordingly, but still we in general have much more low end (and high end) information on everything, compared to the rather "thin" or "narrow", but somehow still big sound of the 70's. Just compare some records of a band like "A Perfect Circle" (which is nice an clear to me for modern standards) to anything 70's. There is much more headroom in the 70's recordings, and much less bass frequencies overall - even bass guitars are often very mid-rangey, biting, possibly even with some flanger, phaser, wah, chorus on.
And drums - just compare how big are 90's, 00's drums and how tiny and/or spacey were the 70's drum in general, even Led Zeppelin - nice roomy drums, but still - how much headroom left... Today - impact, impact, big slamming bass, crispy full snare, larger than life toms, etc. Maybe Bonham kick sounds huge to you - but compare how much less low frequency rumble and impact there is than in the contemporary productions that maybe even have a sub-bass kick sample attached to the original kick... This all takes up headroom and percieved "clarity" - although - I like the "low rumble" of contemporary sound... Just observing the differencies.

I am generalizing. I still find really good sounding contemporary records, so I don't share the OP question, but I can understand what is bothering him.

Tape is one of the answers at least for percussion (and probably anything else, too) in rock/pop. Adding "muddyfying" tape saturations plug-ins and squashing and pushing up in mastering doesn't really do the trick for "clarity".

And in general I agree about the human / art factors others mentioned - more attention for arrangements, skilled engineers and skilled musicians that were the norm to record in the studio, instead of endless repeating and over-producing of today.

Although - try to record a song on tape and you'll see if this is what is the main difference you hear. Even the good 1/4 inch half-track machines with 15ips do the trick brilliantly.

Also - I think most people try to get away from 70's sound, I think many modern recordings are more exciting, but if I want this 70's funky, fusion sound - I know where to go - tape, headroom, whole live takes instead of extensive overdubbing, some tube drive if possible, arranging and mixing with "space" in mind, full L - C - R mixing, some "Helios like" filters... Some wah, chorus, flanger, phaser on at least one or two instruments or voices mandatory.

edit: real Plate and Spring reverb and analog delays don't hurt either to get the 70's "depth"...

[Sk106]

I may be out of my depth here; I was not around back then. But I would suspect that people had a different awareness of what they were doing back then compared to now. They had a more present mindset, of here and now, and what I am actually doing and what this will lead to, specifically. It is in a way related to habituation: the longer you do it, the more you lose touch with reality, you start doing things from impulses and stop thinking about were you’re headed .. what you are actually doing compared to what you think you are doing, if you think at all in the end.

Perhaps this was due to that tracks or hardware were more scarcity then than now, and that engineer wasn’t something you got to be or do without people’s undying confidence in your ability. They had more to lose from being careless – compared to now where everybody (and their dog) does it.

In a way, I can relate to this suspicion from a few cases where younger friends wanted my criticism on their mixes and work, and they were frustrated about how bad it sounded. For an outsider, it was easier to find the questions. When listening to the details, soloing tracks .. I pointed to a number of things that really wasn’t so good. And when I did, they looked/listened and went "What the ..?? Have I done that? Why’d I do that, what was I thinking?”. It was so selfevident, yet it had eluded them completely in their work process. In hindsight, I can really look at what I actually did, as opposed to what I think I did, and it's amazing how many people's work ends up this way, and then asking themselves why they can’t cut it, or how they can improve it.

I suspect that part of the 70s thing is that it wasn’t at all as easy or leisure to deal with the technical and musical aspects of the process. People had to be more aware of what they actually did, what it actually led to, and had their mind in the smallest of details as well as the complete overview, all at the same time. You could probably go back in those mixes and not have much to complain about in hindsight. Today, you’re more likely to find young people asking for “presets” that will make their guitar parts sound more musical. And if it doesn’t work still, they can at least compress the big Jesus out of it.

[SkunkWorks]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

Scarface came out in 1983 or 1933 depending on which version?

I believe it's a reference to the subject matter of the movie, not when it came out

[TerraVibe]

One of the great aspects of technology is this forum right here, we get to communicate with people around the world and share knowledge and opinions. In every craft, there are many factors that contribute to the outcome and result. Many people here covered different and very interesting aspects of the recipe for great recordings and productions.

Some people believe it is the vintage gear and tape and I believe that indeed tape has something that my Apogee converters, or Lynx or Lavry cannot yet achieve. If I want to get in trouble an buy (and maintain and calibrate) a tape machine...I am not sure.

Or are the skills of a great engineer and the mix more important? I have a feeling that people weren't so sophisticated back then and also had to experiment a lot and they needed a lot more effort to do so. I just think that they had the right gear and a recipe that was working.

My grandfather always complained that old cars, machinery, tools (actually just about everything) were better quality in his days...I start to feel the same...vintage gear somehow sounds better.

Anyway, it would be ideal to listen to some raw tracks of a record we all know from back then so that we can compare, I would personally understand some things.

Is it possible to get a big sound in the digital world? It is!

There are many great modern productions out there, but the majority are not! Is it possible to get that great sound of the 70's? I am not sure. That is what I am tying to find out! Maybe I am just romantic and instead of "losing" my time, I should just record, produce and put all my efforts in advertising and promoting my music...because at the end who is gonna listen when nobody knows!

All I know is that when I listen to a lot of that era's music through a nice pair of speakers (or even in my car) i hear a warm, 3-dimensional velvet sound that amazes me...

[mellotronic]

Originally Posted by carllock

Every so far EVERYONE has missed the magic that was the 70's...go rent SCARFACE then report back.

Isn't 'Scarface' from 1980 or 81'... Blondie soundtrack etc... Are you talking about cocaine? I'm pretty sure that was happening in 60's 70's too, in fact good ole' Freud was heavily into "blow". ???

Anyway, it's not the gear, (excuse the pun), it's the sound in your head. Paint that and you will be able to give people "that feeling". Certain tools get you there faster but it has to be in you. In the 70's, the 70's were "in" most people. If you we're talented or clairvoyant enough to be ahead of your time then maybe the 80's and beyond were also in you too.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by TerraVibe

All I know is that when I listen to a lot of that era's music through a nice pair of speakers (or even in my car) i hear a warm, 3-dimensional velvet sound that amazes me...

Ok, now you intrigue me - which album(s) specifically are you talking about...

Maybe you just like that era's music?

There are plenty of warm 3D, velvet sound albums of today. Sure not a bit "low-fi-sh" and with so much headroom as in the 70's - probably this headroom thing is the most important difference - actually now I remembered that I felt the same about all the movie mixes (which use standardized loudness) - that they sound that way - 3D, warm, velvet, clear and dynamic - even with contemporary music included - up until very recently... Did the loudness standards change in film industry?

[waxx]

Originally Posted by eusagc

I guess any of that clarity and depth of the 70's will be totally obliterated when those same albums are smash-mastered today...

Talk about spatial imagery painstakingly toiled at by the mixer for hours... Only to be crushed in minutes by overdriving A/D's followed by a ton of brickwall limiters in the mastering... Clarity turns into digital crunch... How do you get clarity with 4dB of dynamic range? And where is all that depth now???

i cosign

[steelyfan]

From what I've witnessed, alot of people will try to capture close mic'd/clean recordings and then paint/mix them later by adding artificial room depth (verb boxes/ delay) and character. You end up having to impart character to everything, and finally realize after processing/tweaking almost every single track........you are just way off cause the "vibe/sound/space" wasn't there to start.

I think the most important part of this equation is tracking with depth.
Hearing how things need to sit is really important to me during the recording process. Don't track something knowing it's goona be in the back of the mix close up, move the mic until it drops in the mix where you want it, that'll get you closer to a 3D image.

If you want a delay on a guitar, record it with it. If the snare isn't sitting in the mix, crush it during tracking. I've found that by doing all the pre-production stuff up front, and getting your mix together before a note is recorded you'll have a better idea of how the final albulm will sound before hand and you can make adjustments then instead of later realzing that everything sounds stellar but has to be carved to death to make the bass guitar sound like it fits in the song. Tracking is mixing.

I love that 70's sound. Fidelity and mojo make peace with one another. Today's sound is clarity with punch, with the studio sound equipment upfront. I like listening "into" a song rather than it being projected to me.

[Outlaw Hans]

It's mostly the musicians and the way of working. It's very easy to just record 20 traks of guitar and copy paste it into a decent part. However, nothing beats having to think of what a song truly needs and go from there, not seldom having to send players home with a copy of the basics to rehearse until they can get it done in one take. The same goes for miking an instrument. When there's only 24 tracks you have to make discisions early on. The thing with overdubbing and too many mics and options is that when you don't know what your drums will sound like you can't make a good descision on guitar sounds and so on. Musicians, engineers and producers have to commit just a little more. Naturally this pays off.
I track to tape and find it no drawback whatsoever because it is in line with my way of working.
Having said that, I don't fully agree with the sentiment that the sound of tape hasn't got anything to do with it. When I have all my mics setup around the drumkit and listen to the live take through the console I love the sound, but there may be still some frequencies flying around the room so to speak. A snare may still have that nasal knack in the mids. You can still hear that there are microphones involved. Tape does solve this problem brilliantly. It's the finishing touch when you've got everything else in order. The seperation between instruments is clearer. And it's not to do with pushing the tape to its limits which is highly overrated.
I'm not saying that there aren't other ways but tape does a thing to sound which can clearly be heard on the old recordings.
Take Excile on mainstreet. That is a very difficult production in that it's not too tight and there's a lot going on. I can imagine that record being a lot harder to mix if done in PT.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by TerraVibe

There are soooo many? Let's stick to rock and don't go to jazz and blues. What about Floyd, Police, Led Zep, Queen, for starters.

then compare like with like. No point in comparing Nickelback or My Chemical Toilet is here? You want to here what the modern Led Zeps are doing? Then you've got to get into Lowrider, Nebula, Orange GOblin - stuf recorded by Billy Anderson.... that sot of music isnt "popular" {in the chart sense} any more. Have to go leftfield to hear it....

Look at Mark Lannegan, Isobel Campbell, SOME QOTSA {but NOt songs for he deaf which is too smashed}, stuff mixed by Alan Moulder, Little Fish and anything else from Tchad Blake..... had my eyes recently opened to modern recordings from Daniel Lanois... Listen to stuf on Rise Above records, In the Red, stuff recorded at Rancho de Luna

there are literally thousands of great sounding things out there.... just not in the market obsessed charts. What has changed is the popular charts are not dominatd by great sounding records - but there are plenty of great , and digital, mixed records {sic} every week..... but you're not gonna find it by listening to commercial radio or stuff mixed by the three letter boys - the JJPs, the TLA, and CLAs..... these guys dont MAKE those records.....

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans

Take Excile on mainstreet. That is a very difficult production in that it's not too tight and there's a lot going on. I can imagine that record being a lot harder to mix if done in PT.

Definitely. The free glue is not to be under rated.Makes things go closer to working that shouldn't in theory.

[DeadPoet]

No mention of Al Green's 2008 album Lay it Down?

Check out the youtube promo video. That's just a modern LFAC with protools, but the sound .... ahhh... me likes a lot, instant 70ies vibe!




Herwig

[steelyfan]

That's true narco, you can't have you head in popular modern radio all day and then get to your mix wanting something vintage/70's and expect your ears and mind to be working together. I think if you listen to some old Steelydan (first couple records) 70's Stones records and just fill your ears with that ear of stuff on a regular basis, your ears and mind have relaxed an are used to those frequnces. Then it's easier to hear how your mix compares.

It never fails for me though, after listening to newer music that I'll be diggin on (modern production) I'll get pumped and inspired to go create something or get back to that mix I was doing yesterday, and It seems so lo-fi or dark in comparrison. The contrast is striking. But if I just spent the last hour listening to Blue Oyster Cult, then my mind and ears are telling me, "OK!, well I'm in the same ball park here, cool , this is soundig alright!"

[GeorgeHayduke]

Interesting thread..

Many of the things suggested in this thread has made my mixes more natural, spacious and eventually more intimate sounding. I'm self taught, (mostly on the listening basis of 90ies/00ies productions) and have
learned a lot from this board, both about the modern and the former production styles/philosophies.

Some of the things I've learned here/from experience:

L/R/C-panning: What a great way to create (or rather keep!) a sense of (huge/real) space! This, to me somewhat counterintuitive method really has changed the quality of my mixes (thanks Bob Ohlsson and others), and it has certainly made my mixes more spacious and 'natural'-sounding - a good starting point for a 70ies style mix, I think.

NEVE/SSL: (Generalizing here about sound character, but I imagine you can follow me) While the SSL sound is great for modern punch, the Neve sound is just much warmer and more 'natural' sounding. Considering the inherent qualities of high end digital media, I think the Neve sound really compliments the icy character of digital fidelity, and many seem to agree, considering the popularity of Neve style gear.
That said, I personally think that many 70ies recordings lack punch and focus, and I do like my transients more edgy. But I also want it to sound 'natural'. Neve/digital -> the best of both worlds?

HI/LO: Related to the above: ITB you've got to cut down on hi frequencies (and levels!)! I was brought up on analog gear, and used to keep the treble working hard, perhaps also because I didn't know any better, at the time. No more! Keep the high frequencies in check. With good source and a spacious mix (panning/fader riding), you don't need to make things cut through by hyping frequencies.
Oh, and don't forget the locut either.

Internal dynamics: While I'm mostly into rather modern sounding (instrumentally/expressionwise) electro-rock, I'm trying to bring back some of the 'life' of those glory days, and I'm not thinking 'wall of sound'-glory days, or even the 70ies rock-days. Keep going backwards
For instance, just last night I was again listening to a lot of old soul and motown. I completely adore much of that stuff, both for the performances, the simple songwriting and the very spacious-sounding recordings/productions.
For instance, I love Like The Flamingos' 'I only have eyes for you': There are some dynamic changes going on as the instrument arrangement comes in. I love it. Things seem to swell up and then receede in dynamics. When a new instrument appears, it is like hearing a new performer enter a stage and start playing, finding the right spot in front of the mic, it doesn't just appear out of nowhere right in your face. It is just so beautyful and intimate and yet haunting, because of the reverb and the room (not to forget!), and perhaps because the mixer didn't see it as a given that he should edit everything to culminate in one flat line of perceived perfection. I hope you all can find the time to sit down for an hour or two and listen to some old motown and soul. It is such an eye opener for a modern listener/mixer/producer/performer.
For a more recent example of 'free' dynamics: Listen to Lanois' For the Beauty of Winona (the title track). While it is very different from the motown/soul stuff, you will quickly hear the many dynamic changes brought on by Lanois' rather heavy fader riding.
I try to learn from such sources to expand my use of dynamics within the mix. Furthermore, I try not to kill dynamic changes by compression afterwards! Don't get me wrong, I'm definitly not into lofi, that's not what I mean, at all. I just want it to sound alive and good.

Anyways, I am deliberatly trying to produce and mix very modern music with some of the warmth of the 70ies sound, albeit with more focus and tightness. In fact, I do tend to look even further back to see if I can incorporate some of the pure atmosphere and intimacy of the Motown/soul recordings. It has changed my sound fundamentally, and mostly to the better though some of my mixes may not be quite as audibly banging as my older more SSLish mixes.

It makes me really happy to try to go somewhere else than the loudness war. Been there done that. Now I just want to make it sound as good as possible, for the sake of the music. I certainly don't slack or cut corners, I simply just listen for other things than how to uberslam something in the face of the listener.

Wow, this thread really generates words, sorry for another long one

[steelyfan]

Great post george. Lots of realization there.

The stuff about Motown always gets me. Just LOVE the sound of those records. Room sounds and the older mixing board preamp sound goes along way into getting that 70's thing (to me), along with the recording philisophy back then. Lanois is a favorite too! Intimate recordings are my favorite to listen to. My idea of wonderfully recorded music had gone from years of loving Steelydan's production sound to a more Bon Iver or John Frusciante type of sound in only a couple of years. Not the music itself but how it was recored. Crazy how your taste can change so drastically.

I think it's important to at least be able to pick out what type of guitar someone is using in a recording.

[Bob Olhsson]

One thing I didn't mention is that during the '70s it was not very common to use a compressor on a mix buss for anything other than radio and television commercials that needed to be recorded and mixed in an hour or two. Most studios only had three or four compressors and the very biggest only had fewer than ten. The biggest consoles only had 32 inputs with 18-20 being common before 24 track machines became common around 1973. A lot of studios took a big quality hit going 24 track.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Sk106

...They had a more present mindset, of here and now, and what I am actually doing and what this will lead to, specifically. It is in a way related to habituation: the longer you do it, the more you lose touch with reality, you start doing things from impulses and stop thinking about were you’re headed .. what you are actually doing compared to what you think you are doing, if you think at all in the end. ...

A lot of us lost that mindset too. A friend of mine does jazz recordings. He tells me he is very frustrated by the fact that even the greatest players of the '50s insist today on being able to punch in mistakes.

[BillytheMTN]

It was very common in the 70s and by the bands you mentioned to use mind altering chemicals which greatly expanded creativity and perception. The drugs today aren't as prevalent or as high in quality. The depth in Pink Floyd's music was a direct result of the drugs they were ingesting and the new technology (echos, phasers, synthesizers) they were experimenting with. IMHO

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by BillytheMTN

It was very common in the 70s and by the bands you mentioned to use mind altering chemicals which greatly expanded creativity and perception. The drugs today aren't as prevalent or as high in quality. The depth in Pink Floyd's music was a direct result of the drugs they were ingesting and the new technology (echos, phasers, synthesizers) they were experimenting with. IMHO

lol. So that's why L(sd) - C(oke) - R(eefa) mixing sounds so wide and spacious.....

[BillytheMTN]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

lol. So that's why L(sd) - C(oke) - R(eefa) mixing sounds so wide and spacious.....

could have something to do with it.

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I've heard Jack White (White Stripes) refuses to use any gear made after 1972 for recording. He won't even have it in the studio because then an engineer or producer might be tempted to use it.

Nope.
J Chicarrelli ,V Powell,Vlado Meller,etc use lots of stuff.sure tape is involved but newer stuff too.
its the guys tastes/aesthetics/ears twisting the knobs and the room,playing,good instruments,etc

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by BillytheMTN

It was very common in the 70s and by the bands you mentioned to use mind altering chemicals which greatly expanded creativity and perception...

With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, the only thing I ever saw expanded was the number of hours that were spent in the studio along with the advances from the labels that paid for the drugs and left artists never seeing any royalty checks.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by SkunkWorks

I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't get it at first either.. was almost about to make the same comment as you at first (wink).

Hint: I belive it's a reference to the subject matter of the movie, not when it came out

I though he meant was because of Michelle Pheifer or something.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, the only thing I ever saw expanded was the number of hours that were spent in the studio along with the advances from the labels that paid for the drugs and left artists never seeing any royalty checks.

I think it's pretty clear that the biggest influence that drugs had on the music industry was not necessarily on the musicians, but on the audience. So you had an audience that was interested in listening to serious, extended pieces of music and willing to pay for that. In which case, the music industry, like any other, will give the audience what it wants.

The audience today is very different from that, and so the music industry tries to give them waht they want.

I'm sure that there are plenty of artists today who are doing just as many drugs as in the 80s, but they weren't/aren't putting out Wish You Were Here, because the audience wasn't/isn't as interested in that kind of music. Well, MGMT is a young band kind of is doing that.

[Nick_Mags]

Its hard to answer your question because it seems like when someone says something really logical you come back with "That's not what im talking about"

if you're looking for a fat "Tape Sound" then you need to record to tape or mix to tape. Yes music is lacking depth nowadays and not just in the musical sense but in the quality sense as well and that can be partly blamed for lots of reasons (Crappy Producers and Engineers, No sense of mic placement, and plugins and Etc...). A DAW is taking a snapshots of a real acoustic waveform and sampling it. Obviously if you use analog equipment you can capture that change in sound pressure perfectly, where as digital is sampling it so you can get a more real sound using analog equipment.

you talk about vinyl in comparison to today's widely used format (MP3)... There is no comparison its going to sound how the mix engineer intended to on Vinyl. MP3 is going to sound over compressed and like its missing something compared to a vinyl record.

Basically if you want that Queen "Bohemian Rhapsody" or Zeppelin "Where the Levee Breaks" sound youre going to have to record with all or mostly all analog equipment to come close and since they used tape back then you would most likely have to replicate that sound. And even then you may not even come close because engineering back then was a lot different.

Is it possible to make a record with a DAW have depth and sound great... Yes with lots of Time, really good talent, really good production/ engineering. Is most music made that way nowadays, no.

[Lemontree]

It's definately the drugs. Drugs were way better in the 70's.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Lemontree

It's definately the drugs. Drugs were way better in the 70's.

Actually, I imagine that's one area where we can definitively say that the quality has improved, as I understand it. I've not indulged in a long time, but I understand that at least today's greenery is far more potent than back then.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Actually, I imagine that's one area where we can definitively say that the quality has improved, as I understand it. I've not indulged in a long time, but I understand that at least today's greenery is far more potent than back then.

That's a bit like saying 80% proof synthetic Strohrum is better than Havana.......

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by Lemontree

It's definately the drugs. Drugs were way better in the 70's.

Drugs were not better in the 70's. Anything you could get back then you can still get. And a lot more. But now a lot more young people are on mind altering drugs prescribed by doctors. Hmmm, perhaps that is the root of the problem.