The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Clarity and depth of the 70's vs DAW and hard drive: Is it possible... Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 9th November 2009
  #91
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerraVibe View Post
What is the recipe of the great clarity and 3-dimensional sound of the 70's? Modern recordings with big budgets sound muddy and shallow and when you crank up the volume...it gets even worse...you know what I mean!

Some producers say it is the musicians...no I don't think so, there are many great musicians all over the world now days. Some say it is the vintage analog consoles and gear, however, many big studios still use them.

So what the heck is it?
lower track counts, better rooms and probably better performances

try this experiment

track and mix your next project in no more than 24 mono channels and no more than 8 busses... see how that sounds...
Old 9th November 2009
  #92
Certainly it seems that ambience has to play a part in it, which is related to the lower track counts. The amount of artificial reverb in a single song off of Dark Side of the Moon is probably more than in an entire modern album on the whole I'd imagine. With fewer parts, and much more ambience, that's cleary more conducive to depth than more tracks, more compressed, more up front, and dryer.
Old 9th November 2009
  #93
Lives for gear
 
TheMarqueeYears's Avatar
 

It's funny but I listen to my 70's records and love the music despite the recording quality - definately not because of it.

I sit in my own studio and can't beleive how easy it is to get fantastic sounding tracks emerging from my K&H 0300.

Actually I'm alomst emarrassed when I think how those guys used to have to struggle with that old hissy, noisy limited 70's gear.

I was just reading about the making of Rumours .... what a bl**dy nightmare.

Tape machines .... my love afair ended long long ago!

TMY
Old 9th November 2009
  #94
Lives for gear
 
cdog's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
First off, great arrangers have been MIA for over 30 years especially since MIDI became common.
Thats just not a fair statement Bob; its a reflection of your taste in music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I honestly believe that you could hook a DAW up to a console in 1972 and make just as good of a recording so long as you used the same performers, arrangers and decisive production procedure.
I agree with you 100% on this.

For me, the biggest problems with modern recordings are all related to over-engineering: everything autotuned, mapped to a grid, and then overlimited.

Old 9th November 2009
  #95
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdog View Post
Thats just not a fair statement Bob; its a reflection of your taste in music.
I think you are confusing composition with arranging.
Old 9th November 2009
  #96
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerraVibe View Post
What is the recipe of the great clarity and 3-dimensional sound of the 70's? Modern recordings with big budgets sound muddy and shallow and when you crank up the volume...it gets even worse...you know what I mean!

Some producers say it is the musicians...no I don't think so, there are many great musicians all over the world now days. Some say it is the vintage analog consoles and gear, however, many big studios still use them. So what the heck is it?

1. Is it the tape

2. The analog consoles and gear

3. The engineers and the mix methods

4. Something else?

Can we get this sound with the best converters, preamps, a Daw a drive?

Is it possible?
I think all of those things contribute, but one of the biggest factors is the arrangements. They were often more sparse and in busy cases there was less happening in parallel than in series.

Some had to do with a maturity of the musicianship. Personally I think some has to do with people playing simultaneously and hearing closer to the finished product at a creative stage, rather than layering parts one at a time. When people do that they're often the most prominent and they don't hear conflicts. They get attached as well all do, and because they've written everything and they know all the parts they can hear it differently than a listener, and as a result they keep stuff that's hindering the composition.

In other words, if you remixed some older recording with modern techniques, a lot of the magic you're asking for would still be there.


On the technical end, you've still got the tape and tracking techniques, but mostly it's the musical performance content.
Old 9th November 2009
  #97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
First off, great arrangers have been MIA for over 30 years especially since MIDI became common.

Recording also made much greater demands on musicians when you didn't have all of the fix it technology. It meant people simply needed to perform better. As a result, they got good takes faster with a lot more of a gut response to the song involved instead of the amount of conceptual over-thinking that has become common.

I honestly believe that you could hook a DAW up to a console in 1972 and make just as good of a recording so long as you used the same performers, arrangers and decisive production procedure.
I posted before I saw this. I'd like to second this opinion.
Old 9th November 2009
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
It's true that albums were expensive mostly because things needed to be done over rather than just fixed. Most folks today aren't willing to spend that kind of money.
Is it?

I think that many expensive records were a result of writing in the studio - going in unprepared.
Old 9th November 2009
  #99
Jax
Lives for gear
 

The simple answer to all this hand wringing?

Time.
Old 9th November 2009
  #100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
The '70s were a transition period. We were still influenced by the standard of performance required for live, no fixes recording but we had a lot more flexibility.

The musicians were probably no more talented than today but a great deal more was expected of them. We recorded in ensembles. Musicians and engineers were expected to stop the take if they made a mistake. If it happened too often, you lost your job. If the producer found a problem later on, you didn't get called again.

Recording was a very stressful way of life. I hated it but 20-20 hindsight tells me that it did get better results.
Except the played a lot more.

When I was working on Hiram Bullock's last album, he found his date book from 1977. He said that literally he had five sessions a day, every day, or four and a live gig.

The volume and speed of having to be musical in such a concentrated period of time, with such a wide variety of musicians is unbelievably valuable, and the same opportunity does not exist today.

He's talking about 1500+ sessions a year. How many years does it take a musician in this era to have 800-1000 sessions worth of experience?

I'd estimate 6-8 years for the busy ones, longer for the average ones.

There were guys who did this for 10-20 years. That's a whole different level.


One of the things I like about older guys, is that they're not on the phone withing 30 minutes of arriving telling someone "I'm in the studio, I can't talk" with a tone of voice that makes it clear that this is an event. They also don't have the need to make this particular session the one where they get to show off. They'll do it when it's appropriate, whereas a new guy who'd only got one other recording (done in someone's home studio) want to find an excuse to drop the Vinny Caliuta fill from the yellow Sting album so that he can put it on his myspace page, and he wants to drop that fill even though it doesn't fit with the song at all.

I totally understand the motivation, but it's not one that leads to great music.
Old 9th November 2009
  #101
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireMoon View Post
One thing they didn't do, was use NS chuffin 10s, dons flame suit....

Let me explain a little further.. There are, basically, two camps of audio design forever trying to reach a third state. Those camps can be classified, for ease of reference as this.

Those that see timing and the leading edge of a note and it's decay as paramount importance and those who look past that and try to capture the, again for ease of reference, the 3 dimensional imagery as well as the attack and decay. However the timing systems often lack some sense of depth and the 3d systems can sound a little *slow*, timing wise and well, ponderous, killing the drive of the music. Not really a good thing for anything that is rhythm driven,

I'm going to generalise again for clarity, but we talking say, the difference between, SSL mixed through NS10s and Neve mixed through AR18s..

Thing is, neither is right, neither is wrong, they are personal preferences. On the whole those using the SSL/NS10 style will be those who favour timing and the attack of a note cutting through, over those in the Neve/Ar18 camp who prefer something , maybe a little less *exciting sounding* but aurally more complete..

Now you can quote all the damn figures you like to say it aint so, but truth is, CDs just dont seem to have the sense sense of depth perspective as the old vinyl albums did. However, with better and better converters that has changed and the contemporary digital system does have some real depth, if you choose to use it.

However, that presupposes that. You want to and that, your ears are searching for it in the first place Now to further muddy the waters, as it were, you have to take into account the brain itself. The brain seeks to position everything it hears, with a pinpoint precision. OK, so what happens if you do, as many do in today's productions and have the main voice not simply as a *single source, maybe double tracked ontop of itself, but. Spread pretty wide, left and right, across the image.. The brain says.. ahh ok... one voice but, no longer a single source so it sums them together as one mass across the sound stage in front of you...

In doing that, is gives the brain a false perspective and makes the backing seem to recede and sound smaller. Nothing wrong with that, for pop it was always the way, pretty much. However with rock and other forms it sounds bloody weird.

In short, where possible, keep the sound stage as uncluttered as you can both sonically and in terms of imagery. If you stack guitar parts to thicken up a sound, don't spread them right across the picture you are trying to create. Where possible make them have specific locations in space, ie , a single point source...

Drums... narrow the soundfield a little bring the kit back into itself so when the drummer does a roll it doesn't splatter right across the image but actually seems to be a kit in real space.. If you mix in a DAW use the dual panners on a stereo channel.. Ie with my snares i have the dual pan set one centre one just slightly offset, the hi-hat set to the outside of edge of the snare and kept in a very tight field.. That gives it a pinpoint source, the overheads really then, only serve to give it a sense of depth within the room.

The best gear does two things, it can convey the rhythmic dynamics, leading edge of notes and decay well AS WELL AS retaining a genuine sense of 3 dimensional sound.

At a more reasonably cost level, go for THE MOST neutral speakers you can find to monitor on. Clue, they ain't NS10s. Don't flood your sonic picture with detail, keep it as simple as possible, the black spaces between the instruments are the key to depth.

I agree, to some extent, with what others have said here. The amount of people working today, who can get a 3 d sound from a really busy mix is...not many at all. To some extent that is the fault of digital systems until recently. They weren't that conducive to that whole sort of mixing so the NS10 party have had a field day because they have, so far, rendered the best compromise..

Don't forget this... In the 70s people, often, made music aimed at the highest end of the consumer chain, as much as possible. Today, music is made for the lowest common denominator, the chuffin Ipod and phones. The only people who can change that and let me state, there are those who refuse to subscribe to this mantra, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, are the people making recordings ..

Now, before i kept dumped on, from a great height, i know i have grossly exaggerate here , but it was for effect, to illustrate the points boldly for the purposes of a forum...
A lot of good stuff in this post. Play with your wording on the first part and I bet you'll reach more people with it.

I think the highlight was

"Don't forget this... In the 70s people, often, made music aimed at the highest end of the consumer chain, as much as possible. Today, music is made for the lowest common denominator, the chuffin Ipod and phones. The only people who can change that and let me state, there are those who refuse to subscribe to this mantra, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, are the people making recordings .. "

I'm not sure if that was true, but it sounds good, and I think that that's a great philosophy to have in any era.
Old 9th November 2009
  #102
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge View Post
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
I was going to dispute that as well, but after talking to Vance about working at Jack's home studio, I think it probably comes reasonably close.

Like an old two inch studio with a modern conversion to 8 tracks. And old Neve console, but I'm sure the monitors are recent.

So literally not trure, but in spirit probably pretty close.


I think the 1972 reference comes from Elephant (I think it was) that was recorded in a studio that made that claim.
Old 9th November 2009
  #103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Certainly it seems that ambience has to play a part in it, which is related to the lower track counts. The amount of artificial reverb in a single song off of Dark Side of the Moon is probably more than in an entire modern album on the whole I'd imagine. With fewer parts, and much more ambience, that's cleary more conducive to depth than more tracks, more compressed, more up front, and dryer.
I agree with that.


(Wow, eh?)
Old 9th November 2009
  #104
Lives for gear
 

I can't help but think it's entirely the gear (the instruments as well as the recording gear and every other part of the chain through to the mastering).

That may not explain the specific clarity in question or the music or the arrangement or artistic choices...but those aren't really the reason for the overall sound...

Is there any music from the 70s that doesn't sound like the 70s? When Queen does Crazy Little Thing Called Love, does that sound like the 50s? No, sounds like a 50s song recorded in the 70s...

If you took a picture of someone now with an old camera from the 70s, it would look like the 70s, wouldn't it? The same sort of coloration. No matter how you took the picture or what you took it of...
Old 10th November 2009
  #105
Gear Head
 

I have been on this exact same quest/obsession for some years now (actually when I started out I posted a similar thread.) What I've come to believe is that it was the sum total of the equipment used at the time. If a modern recording through the same gear, through tape into a DAW doesn't give the same sound there's the fact that the tape formulation may be modern. But the big, big factor that I've come to understand is that most AD converters just IMAGE in a completely different way than the albums that you and I love. So even if you've gone through all that great analog gear first your whole sense of the aural field, your sense of the spacial arrangement of sound and the canvas of the music is something entirely different than what it was on those 70s records. It feels to me like many converters make the music play out as if it's coming from your own head or into your own head. Some 70s recording did as well but in a different way; you were always still allowed to be an audience for the music- like being an audience member at the movie theater, entranced by and caught up in what's being played out on the screen but never being assaulted by it. Also with most converters, specific tracks or areas within the sound field have a kind of rigidity and lack of integraton with the overall sound. I find this to be true even in high end converters like RADAR. I'm currently having some success using a nice analog chain on the front end (U67-Trident B Range-1176) into Apogee AD16X (which has a kind of dark, round analog glue and the most vintage imaging of the many converters I tried in my price range) and supplementing that with some of the excellent plugins that were designed using vintage gear. I like amplitube's recent amp simulations and Quantum Leap Pianos. Based on the sound of Pianos it seems to me that the Meitner converters would be the closest thing to tape that money can buy. Anyway, best of luck in your quest; I'm right there with you.
Old 10th November 2009
  #106
Gear Head
 

Oh, and of course the way many people are mastering these days is a whole other can of worms.
Old 10th November 2009
  #107
Lives for gear
 
666666's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerraVibe View Post

What is the recipe of the great clarity and 3-dimensional sound of the 70's?

Modern recordings with big budgets sound muddy and shallow
...
The answer to your question is multi-fold, but I believe the biggest, most noticeable issue is described in these posts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post

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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguelo Adorno View Post

I think a big part of it is just simply a different production philosophy... Not everything needed to be in your face...
Quote:
Originally Posted by eusagc View Post

...How do you get clarity with 4dB of dynamic range?...
You want great clarity and 3-dimensional sound? Step one... when dealing with compression in general, especially buss and mastering compression, less is more... back off... back WAY off. It's that simple. It's a solid start anyway.

If the goal is "loud" and "in-your-face", well then it can't be clear and 3-dimensional at the same time. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's a total contradiction. Dynamic range is a dimension. When you over-limit a buss or master, you are completely REMOVING that dimension. How can something sound "dimensional" if you remove an entire dimension?!?!?!

The most "clear", "wide", "dimensional" productions from the past are clearly VERY dynamic, very "open", it would seem there is very little if any compression / limiting across the 2-buss / master... unlike almost EVERYTHING that is being put out today.

Ok, someone I'm sure will chime in and state that some old productions ARE quite "limited" due to excessive tape compression in some cases... well, such productions, even though "old", are NOT necessarily clear and 3-dimensional. Just because a production is "old" or "from the `70's" etc does NOT mean it's clear and 3-dimensional... some are, some aren't. But indeed, some of the better or best "popular" productions that exist have come from a period over 25 years ago.

Of course there are other factors that come into play, but if I had to choose the biggest offender, I'd say it's the complete disregard for dynamics these days that kill the clarity and dimension.... and this problem is amplified by the plethora of digital plug-in compressor / limiters available to anyone and everyone, highly effective "brickwall" limiters etc, and also the very large amount of people using this stuff merely "because it's there".

When one is finally able to let go of the whole loudness affair and stop trying to "compete" with other modern productions, that's when one will begin to appreciate dynamics in music. When you finally understand and appreciate dynamics, you'll never hear music the same ever again.... it will be truly enlightening... and once you're on that path, it shouldn't be too hard to dial up productions that are clear and dimensional.

You will learn to RESPECT your compressors and limiters and in some cases not even touch them. A decibel or two of 1.5:1 ratio "limiting" that you once would not have been able to detect will now sound like "squashing". This is when you will truly begin yielding "good" audio.

I suppose I should mention that indeed the performance / arrangement / quality of recording plays a big part here. If something is performed / recorded in such a manner that the dynamics are just total chaos, then you have an inherent problem, in this case limiters may need to be used as "surgical tools" to help salvage the mess that is on tape... but for the sake of this discussion, I'm assuming you're dealing with reasonably good recorded material.

In addition, ironically, all the modern "tools" out there that are supposed to make "cold, digital" signals sound "warm" and more like "analog"... most or all of these add distortion / compression... just takes you farther away from clarity and dimension. It's like going backwards. Such tools may indeed yield a "softer, darker" character or whatever, but there is no reason why they would ever help you reach greater clarity and dimension. If clarity and dimension is what you're after, stay away from tools that specifically promise "analog emulation" or whatever. Well, they might be ok occasionally on a given single track in a multi-track mix, but NOT across a mix buss or master.

So, in sum, if you want the clarity and dimension of some of the great productions of yesteryear, simply make a study of dynamics... apply great focus and discipline when going anywhere near a compressor or limiter for buss / mastering duties.... and even with individual tracks. Realize that a modern brickwall limiter is like a bazooka... if you do not treat it with care and respect, you could wind up doing a GREAT deal of damage.

I think a lot of excellent and interesting points have been brought up in this thread, but when you boil it all down, great dimensional productions of the past had great dynamic range... and modern "muddy, shallow" productions do not. Taking away an entire dimension (dynamic range) from audio is surely going to cause great harm. It's a very obvious and basic concept.

The good news, if one is able to focus and be disciplined with respect to dynamics, high-fidelity may not be too far out of reach, just a matter of using one's ears and exercising control... and you don't even need an analog tape machine!!!

The bad news.... once you master the art of true high-fidelity, clarity, dimension etc, you will be very upset to learn that nobody around you has a desire for it... it's almost a "dead art" at this point. Well, hopefully that will change as technology and the need for a new marketing trend ushers in a 24/96k standard consumer audio file format. There MAY be hope!!!
Old 10th November 2009
  #108
Lives for gear
 
jindrich's Avatar
 

If only we could ask people who where there back then, like.. Al Schmitt..

Wait, he's still here and his current records sound great, even though he's using PTHD now..


Then it must not be the gear. Surprise, surprise.
Old 10th November 2009
  #109
well... if anyone REALLY wants that 70s sound, I'm sellin' a well kept Tascam Series 5 mixer... it's 8chs w/ 4 busses and only weighs about a ton - but it's got lotsa garage mojo...
Old 10th November 2009
  #110
Lives for gear
 
saovi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGoody View Post
Any professional engineer working regularly in the 70's probably had 10x the skill level of the average working engineer today - and I personally feel that's an understatement.

To me, the skill level of that era far exceeds now, and that's the reason we still talk about their techniques, etc......
This says it all imo. If those guys then were armed with today's technology, I think they would still sound pretty much the same, although my guess is that they would want to mix OTB.
Old 10th November 2009
  #111
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerraVibe View Post
We are talking in general terms, we don't want to make a list of recordings and artists! Many producers say that tape and vinyl has another depth and presence...I am an artist trying to record my music with what I have and I am looking for opinions.

Record to a big studio with a Neve or Api into PT( I have already done it) isn't enough. Something else is missing...
Well, I think the Police recorded Ghost in the Machine on a digital recorder. But it sure sounds good. So I'm with Mr. Olhsson on this. I think you could have taken a DAW back to those days and hooked it up to the board as your "tape machine" and recorded something that sounded great. Rooms had something to do with it I think.
Old 10th November 2009
  #112
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666666 View Post
Of course there are other factors that come into play, but if I had to choose the biggest offender, I'd say it's the complete disregard for dynamics these days that kill the clarity and dimension.... and this problem is amplified by the plethora of digital plug-in compressor / limiters available to anyone and everyone, highly effective "brickwall" limiters etc, and also the very large amount of people using this stuff merely "because it's there".

The bad news.... once you master the art of true high-fidelity, clarity, dimension etc, you will be very upset to learn that nobody around you has a desire for it... it's almost a "dead art" at this point. Well, hopefully that will change as technology and the need for a new marketing trend ushers in a 24/96k standard consumer audio file format. There MAY be hope!!!
I agree that this is pretty much what's happening. Natural ambience seems to come through more in those older recordings. Excessive compression really screws up the ambience on a track, both natural and artificial. So there goes your depth.
Old 10th November 2009
  #113
I guess we also have to consider that, when you knew that on any given day you had a high chance of choking on your own vomit and dying, that probably created a significant incentive to try to do something great today, since tomorrow morning you could be floating face down in the pool.

Today, no musicians ever choke on their own vomit. So they probably feel that they have lots of time to do their great work in the future. I think it really creates a completely different sort of sensibility towards the creative process.
Old 10th November 2009
  #114
Speaking of the 70s, check out this video. It's a 70's German band called The Rattles. It's not an example of clarity and depth, but check the groove during the verses on this one. The chorus is a little bit of an overwrought Hair musical type thing, but the groove in the verses just flat kills.

YouTube - The Rattles - You Can't Have Sunshine Every Day (1971)
Old 10th November 2009
  #115
Lives for gear
 
larry b's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
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.
I think this is a very good point right here.
Old 10th November 2009
  #116
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Speaking of the 70s, check out this video. It's a 70's German band called The Rattles. It's not an example of clarity and depth, but check the groove during the verses on this one. The chorus is a little bit of an overwrought Hair musical type thing, but the groove in the verses just flat kills.

YouTube - The Rattles - You Can't Have Sunshine Every Day (1971)
yeah nice sparse classic rock arrangement.the verse reminds me of Zeps 'Bring it on Home"
I guess Jack whites kinda groovin in that direction.
polar opposite to the Linkin Park,etc overdone stuff out today
Old 10th November 2009
  #117
Lives for gear
 
desotoslo's Avatar
 

I haven't read through this whole thread, so I don't know if someone posted this link already, but here it is anyway:

How to achieve a more 70s-like stereo spectrum?
Old 10th November 2009
  #118
Gear Addict
 

Its pretty staight forward really

1 . Tape is more deeper open 3D hi fi over Digital

2 . Mixing on a good console also maitains a larger wider sound space. Better than ITB

3 . Mixing with 100% outboard fxs comps eqs ect instead of pluginns.

But it is the sound of TAPE is what really makes the bigger Difference...

Tape to Console with full outboard is the Pinnacle.
Digital sucks Basically..

If your an audio buff then tape is the only solution for now. Maybe another 20 years things could change and digital might surpass tape..
But who Knows???

The best i can get from digital is to record at 96k through apogees mixing OTB to a desk with all hi end outboard everything..
But my good old tape Machine is king and Apogee/Computer is just what ever..Dull small thin
Old 10th November 2009
  #119
from Radar user Dan Lanois:

"It's interesting how everybody references Led Zeppelin records today, but nobody wants to make them anymore.

“Instead, they go into the studio and choke the bass drum to death, make sure it sounds ticky with no roundness whatsoever, and God forbid it should ever resonate. So that's where we're at today; we have our references intact, but we are not brave enough to do anything with them.

“The greatest folly of modern times is to try to make things sound small, so they occupy a tiny space in the picture and can cut through the mix or something. It is crazy. Engineers will cut down everything below 400 Hz from an acoustic guitar because they think it's booming. But 90 percent of the body of the guitar is in that range. If you kill that, you're left with the scratchy-nails-on-the-blackboard sound. Or people use transducers that sound like crap. Or you get the flunky engineers (who all end up doing work for television) rolling off the bottom end, because TV sets aren't supposed to have the capacity to reproduce that.

“Instead, make a thing sound as big as you possibly can, so it can hold its head up with dignity and pride! When you pipe a Bob Marley track through a TV set, it will sound fantastic because everything in the sound picture is perfect. Even though the television set may not be capable of putting out anything below 90 Hz, you still get relative harmonics ringing. So by putting 30 Hz in there, you get a better 150 Hz. That's why old records sound better than current ones; producers were not afraid to crank up the bass.

“Now it's all about cranking up the hi-hat and making things as bright as possible — and for God's sake, roll off everything in the low midrange and don't have any bottom. And then go home and listen to old Led Zeppelin records for inspiration! The only records that sound good these days are hip-hop records, because the producers understand something about bottom end.”
Old 10th November 2009
  #120
Here for the gear
 

And yet nobody has pointed out the rather obvious issue of over compressed mastering?

We can argue about a lot of the finer details involved until the ends of the earth. The start of the topic was based on a simple general issue. And it has a simple general answer. The way we now push the tracks to sound louder at quieter levels will leave them noisy and muddy at louder levels. Welcome to the music industry.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Durv / Music Computers
6
monobeat / Music Computers
5
skan / Music Computers
1
Absolute / Music Computers
7
Teacher / So much gear, so little time
31

Forum Jump
Forum Jump