that vintage sound VU 60s etc...

[arpodthegreat]

i´ve been trying to understand why old records sound great. i listen to a lot of 60s stuff like the velvet underground, pretty things, 13th floor elevators, old dylan, etc... and i noticed that sometimes you can barely make out the drums. it´s just the hi hat or the snare that you hear. everything is "muddy" and it sounds like someone just rolled off the high end. the weird thing is i don´t mind it and it actually sounds great. so i´m wondering how these old records "get away" with that sound. i have recorded stuff using a 4 track fostex to do the drums and even tried doing some gtrs and stuff with it but everything just turns to mush. or the drums sound great but then when i fill out the track with everything else i can´t really hear the kick. sometimes i think o well it´s cool to not hear everything perfect it´ll be like the velvet underground but i always think it just sounds amateur.
how come old records (even really old) sound great and not my stuff. is it the mastering or what? will my stuff just sound fine once it´s been mastered?

[XHipHop]

why would a $150 fostex casette recorder sound like a good studio with top of the line gear that many people still use today?

I think therein lies part of your answer.

[JonCraig]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

I think therein lies part of your answer.

and the other part might be the guy twisting the knobs. it's no wonder that the guys who made those records are still the guys often interviewed in the trade mags.

--jon

[arpodthegreat]

i guess that´s a simple answer but i wonder if it´s something else as well. i know that the fostex (it´s what a lot of Real Gone by Tom Waits was recorded on and Mark Howard told me he couldn´t beat that sound if he tried) isn´t going to sound like abbey road and that i´m not the most pro engineer. i´m just wondering if that old sound sounds good to us because we know it was done 45 years ago or if its something more. i mea

[XHipHop]

It sounds good because those songs are good. You like the songs and you grow attached to those sounds.

If the songs sucked you would hate those sounds.

[swankdoc]

Its style. It comes and goes. Its why bell bottoms and open collared shirts looked good in the 70's. You've become accustomed to certain songs with certain sounds. If you remixed them at todays standards, they'd sound like piss.
But if you also tried mixing tunes today by yesterdays reference, your client might piss on you.

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by arpodthegreat

i´ve been trying to understand why old records sound great. i listen to a lot of 60s stuff like the velvet underground, pretty things, 13th floor elevators, old dylan, etc... and i noticed that sometimes you can barely make out the drums. it´s just the hi hat or the snare that you hear. everything is "muddy" and it sounds like someone just rolled off the high end. the weird thing is i don´t mind it and it actually sounds great. so i´m wondering how these old records "get away" with that sound.

The songs were so good that the production didn't matter... now a days songs are being "produced" into "product" where in those days great performances of great songs were recorded... which is how the "got away" with the shit sounding like that [there was a ton of crap recorded during that time as well... you just don't hear that crap today because it was crap and dismissed as irrelevant].

If you have great songs and performances they'll still be great songs if you record them on a cassette deck in your bedroom... if you have mediocre songs and mediocre artists then you'll need the full power of a high-tech studio to try to drag out something of moderate interest.

[chetatkinsdiet]

What Fletcher said. Also, most of those recordings were done live and in a great sounding room.

This goes back to the answer that the guys that really understand the recording process will tell you to most of your questions about which thing is better than the other. Get a great song and great musicians and nothing else matters. Now, assume you have that. The room is the next most important thing.
If you could go back in a time machine with your fostex and sit in the same room with the VU, I'm sure it would sound fairly decent as well on your gear.

later,
m

[nishan]

Word Chetatkins,
The sound people are looking for from the VU records has nothing to do with the recording equipment and everything to do with the raw product. Lots of artists in the 60s would have loved to have access to modern day technologies, but then, would we have the velvet underground that we love? I think spending less time focusing on how your music will sound after it is played, should come after if one can actually dig it. All of us would love to have all of that mystical 60s equipment that created these gems, but maybe what is needed is the magical 60s drive to create and disregard for hacks and businessmen. Also, the Velvet Underground didn't waste time on websites asking strangers how to sound heavy. They just ****ing did it.
nishan

[rack gear]

ok - lets be clear - Tom Waits "Real Gone" was not recorded on a Fostex 4 track by Mark Howard... perhaps select tracks were effected or "processed" through a fostex 4track cassette deck - but to imply the full album was recorded this way is just nonsense.

I'll take a stab that it sounds good because the songs are good, the performances of the songs are good, and the recording/mixing of the songs are good... even if mono, that equals good.

and let us not forget that in most applications, pro gear from the 60s is still better than amature/prosumer gear from today...

Originally Posted by arpodthegreat

i guess that´s a simple answer but i wonder if it´s something else as well. i know that the fostex (it´s what a lot of Real Gone by Tom Waits was recorded on and Mark Howard told me he couldn´t beat that sound if he tried) isn´t going to sound like abbey road and that i´m not the most pro engineer. i´m just wondering if that old sound sounds good to us because we know it was done 45 years ago or if its something more.

[JP11]

I don't think it's just the song or the artist...people hear things differently, but...you could ask how come some recordings sound "too good" to the point that it's unappealing, and it's not because of the song or the artist....

I think those old records have a shitty is pretty thing and the gear they recorded on is a great part of it, and a lot of us love love love that sort of sound....like an old blues amp or an old blues voice...

[Mike Aimer]

Older rock songs are great!
Either you are enjoying a song that you love regardless of its technological limitations, or you've slightly expanded your understanding of what "good" sound can be. Growing up on Led Zeppelin, it took me years to listen to Highway 61 and accept it as a great sounding record. I never thought the recording quality, or the band "rocked" enough. However, I could accept the Velvet Underground and Nico despite it's sound because I took to it's visceral qualities and that was legal in my mind. Go figure.

[Santiago]

I think that the Velvet Underground had a DIY approach to recording. True, they used professional studios, but little professional engineering (I'm talking of the first and second albums. The third one was beautifully engineered by Val Valentine, who had worked with Ella Fitzgerals, etc. The Valentine mix is really good, whereas the Lou Reed "Closet" mix is the usual VU bizarre mixing).

As a result those albums sound wrong, full of engineering mistakes, but that also makes them timeless and fresh.

I think they inspired a lot of the latter lo-fi movement.

So, if you are interested in that kind of sound I would recommend experimenting and integrating that DIY lo-fi approach into your work

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by arpodthegreat

i´ve been trying to understand why old records sound great. i listen to a lot of 60s stuff like the velvet underground, pretty things, 13th floor elevators, old dylan, etc... and i noticed that sometimes you can barely make out the drums. it´s just the hi hat or the snare that you hear. everything is "muddy" and it sounds like someone just rolled off the high end. the weird thing is i don´t mind it and it actually sounds great. so i´m wondering how these old records "get away" with that sound. i have recorded stuff using a 4 track fostex to do the drums and even tried doing some gtrs and stuff with it but everything just turns to mush. or the drums sound great but then when i fill out the track with everything else i can´t really hear the kick. sometimes i think o well it´s cool to not hear everything perfect it´ll be like the velvet underground but i always think it just sounds amateur.
how come old records (even really old) sound great and not my stuff. is it the mastering or what? will my stuff just sound fine once it´s been mastered?

if you surround your 4 track with decent outboard you'll be surprised with the results.

the freq. response of the recorder and the cassette will be there no matter what (and especially, no matter what gear you surround it with), it's limited, but that's also why so many ppl like it (including me).

if you get a decent pre, record with decent mics (i do the bulk of my stuff with old ribbons and dynamics), a hot condenser for some less important tracks so that, even the bits that will be buried in the background have a certain amount of clarity, you'll be very much surprised. of course you have to mix it wisely as well.

get stuff that matches your recorder..you don't need a 1000 dollar preamp, it's just silly, but something like a little DMP3, the Electro-Harmonix 12ay7, the GT Brick, the GA Pre-73 are all worthwhile investments. don't use a lot of compression, just where you absolutely need - no tape compresses like cassette. you wanna record hot but not clipping all the time. choose a pre that has a healthy amount of gain (more than 60dbs)...out of those up there, only the electro harmonix and the brick don't have that, but don't be afraid to beef it up with the porta gain after you've maxed out the gain on your main preamp...you'll be surprised with how decent a tascam 244's pres really sound.

get a decent outboard fx unit for general use, like the Lexicon LXP1...cheap and stellar for what it is. get a good spring reverb as well, lots of sounds from that era were springs or vastly plates. you can make a good spring reverb sound like a half-good plate reverb.

don't make the mistake of thinking that every piece of gear you own has to be dirty and coloured...the 4 track does 90% of the job for you.

however..there are recorders and then there's Recorders..i wouldn't go with fostex anything, although i'm sure your recorder is fine. the tascam 244 is the best porta ever built. the 246 is close behind but a bit trickier to use..the older 144 is great, but although the eq is the best out of those 3, there are no inserts...the 234 ain't a porta but it's by far one of the best cassette recorders ever built...on a more modern note, the tascam 424 is great, and a lesser unit but still decent is the 414. the rest is garbage, including the porta 01, 02, etc etc series.

you want a good sound, but don't make the mistake of running the recorder's motors at full speed, half-way is more than fine. you also want inserts cause most portas don't have more than 1 aux send/return.

don't bounce internally...bounce a final mix to the puter, save that tape and start a new one when you bounce back to the porta.

the first mix should have your main tracks. don't be afraid to commit commit commit and to subdue the other mix elements to the first mix. and above all, don't get too precious, you're 4 tracking, it's supposed to be fun.

if you're limiting yourself to a recorder like this, stuff is supposed to sound charming, not like CBS studios in the 50s. although all it takes to get those sounds are those rooms and careful mic positioning..and of course, that talent. soon enough, that is if you really commit to 4 tracking, you're gonna find your own sound and not really care about this or that era.