How is it all recorded.
Though I hesitated thus far to plunge into the world of audio engineering, however, the time has come to investigate how these sounds that I listen to are produced. The knowledge may have some bearing on the speaker systems I build, possibly, but that remains to be seen.
As I write this, the motivation for my query haunts my mind, in the form none other than John Martyn's "One Step Too Far" . Recently downloaded to my Apple Music app, I first heard this artist on a set of review records in the 1980s, on vinyl, actually though I had no appreciation of the value of the black gold I held in my hands and trashed on an 'all in one' Sony music system. Another live album, (which one?) was even better and has a blurb about being digitally mastered or metal pressed something, with the upbeat version of "Angeline" quite something to listen to.
But I digress, so on the track "One Step Too Far", John Martyn (God Bless him) seems to be standing in a long, dark room (make that cave) very far away from the microphone, and echoing equally on left and right channels. Highly disconcerting, and artistic licence aside, why would anyone do that? Also is this typical of the spatial mayhem that our beloved recording engineers create with the pure music that our even more beloved artists produce so carefully? Is the artist involved sometimes?
There was a site that reviewed records from the point of view of technical recording , can't find it again, if anyone knows the link could you please post it here. (Is it SOS - sound on sound?)
Where can I learn more about recording tricks and techniques?
Though I hesitated thus far to plunge into the world of audio engineering, however, the time has come to investigate how these sounds that I listen to are produced. The knowledge may have some bearing on the speaker systems I build, possibly, but that remains to be seen.
As I write this, the motivation for my query haunts my mind, in the form none other than John Martyn's "One Step Too Far" . Recently downloaded to my Apple Music app, I first heard this artist on a set of review records in the 1980s, on vinyl, actually though I had no appreciation of the value of the black gold I held in my hands and trashed on an 'all in one' Sony music system. Another live album, (which one?) was even better and has a blurb about being digitally mastered or metal pressed something, with the upbeat version of "Angeline" quite something to listen to.
But I digress, so on the track "One Step Too Far", John Martyn (God Bless him) seems to be standing in a long, dark room (make that cave) very far away from the microphone, and echoing equally on left and right channels. Highly disconcerting, and artistic licence aside, why would anyone do that? Also is this typical of the spatial mayhem that our beloved recording engineers create with the pure music that our even more beloved artists produce so carefully? Is the artist involved sometimes?
There was a site that reviewed records from the point of view of technical recording , can't find it again, if anyone knows the link could you please post it here. (Is it SOS - sound on sound?)
Where can I learn more about recording tricks and techniques?
The artist is always involved, but it is the producer who decides. The engineer tries to get the sound they are looking for. Of course it all depends upon the artist/producer relationship. If I don't want any reverb, and my engineer insists on putting lots of it in, I have a new engineer tomorrow.
he doesn't sound "off-mic" to me, though there is a lot of reverb.
There are two Jeff Beck LPs I really like: Blow by Blow and Wired. They sound good and I like the music. But they are recorded with the electronic piano on hard left and right trem. So the piano sound jumps left and right the entire time, like ping pong ball. I really hate that. I listen in mono. It was their recording decision, but I dislike the result.
There are various forums for the recording arts. it is a huge thing to learn about. There are books. There are even college courses.
he doesn't sound "off-mic" to me, though there is a lot of reverb.
There are two Jeff Beck LPs I really like: Blow by Blow and Wired. They sound good and I like the music. But they are recorded with the electronic piano on hard left and right trem. So the piano sound jumps left and right the entire time, like ping pong ball. I really hate that. I listen in mono. It was their recording decision, but I dislike the result.
There are various forums for the recording arts. it is a huge thing to learn about. There are books. There are even college courses.
Recording and Mixing sites
No this was not the one. This has reviews of the music not the recording technique.
There are a few I found since:
Sound On Sound | The World's Premier Music Recording Technology Magazine
Review of a classic track:
Classic Tracks: "How Sweet It Is (to Be Loved by You)" | Mixonline
This is closer to what I was thinking
Inside Track: Justin Bieber, Purpose | Sound On Sound
Mixonline
- Tape Reviews : Recording Magazine -
No this was not the one. This has reviews of the music not the recording technique.
There are a few I found since:
Sound On Sound | The World's Premier Music Recording Technology Magazine
Review of a classic track:
Classic Tracks: "How Sweet It Is (to Be Loved by You)" | Mixonline
This is closer to what I was thinking
Inside Track: Justin Bieber, Purpose | Sound On Sound
Mixonline
- Tape Reviews : Recording Magazine -
Suppose you are building speakers, or putting together a system, are recording techniques something you will consider or have an impact?
What are we trying to recreate here - how the master tapes sounded on the studio monitors? Or something else?
This review even has a playable recording of the actual music, and the voice seemed to be mixed too forward, with less 'echo' or 'reverb' as it is called, on the vocals than the instruments, so I agree with the reviewer:
"As for the other areas, we would urge Gary to dial back his vocal reverb and drop the overall vocal volume a bit in order to seat it better in the mix."
Looks like some common ground here, some understanding.
"As for the other areas, we would urge Gary to dial back his vocal reverb and drop the overall vocal volume a bit in order to seat it better in the mix."
Looks like some common ground here, some understanding.
Jeff Beck's "Wired" is amazing stuff. I am listening to it now on YouTube and its phychadelic-jazz-rock. No I never heard a Jeff Beck album before, Santana, Tommy Shaw and Gary Moore are my favourite guitarists.
Some times the guitar track seems to emanate from left and right at the same time - mixing no doubt, not two guitars? I guess there is no connection to reality.
I used to read Recording magazine. Haven't in years, glad it is still around. I assume MIX magazine is still around? I can't open your link to a review, but they used to have a "reader tapes" section where you sent them recordings and they critique them from a recording standpoint - not the talent of the performer.
When you listen to music, do you adjust anything due to recording techniques? I don't, I just listen to the music, and I set up my system for the most pleasing sound. Unless I happen top look up a particular recording, I have no idea where or when it was recorded and by whom, let alone all the processing. The recording industry does not set out to faithfully reproduce the exact sound that occurred in the studio. They set out to create the most listenable sound. Many times there was no studio occurrence. The musicians may not have been there together at all, and in fact some may have been across the country or around the world when contributing their part.
recording is one art, while mastering is a totally separate part of it.
If your stereo system is accurate, it will reproduce the sound in the studio monitor speakers of the mastering desk.
I was watching a show about the music industry earlier this evening on public TV. They came to the band Boston. Tom Scholz was the mind behind Boston. yes, the same Tom Scholz of Rockman fame. He told us there was no "band" Boston. he recorded all the instruments himself, except the drums. he was amused that the record company never knew or found out that the recordings were made in his basement. Once the record took off, he put together a band to tour in support of the music. Point being, what you see and hear is not necessarily the truth. In show biz, it is the impression that matters, not the reality. It LOOKS like they saw the lady in half. It SOUNDS like a 20 person chorus, when it is the same person multitracked. I used to be a radio personality, and I did "live shows", which amounted to me sitting in the studio with an audience response sound track. Every studio has a pitch corrector. You can sing off key, and it will correct your pitch. Of course you can turn that effect up really high and it becomes a special effect. But used as intended, it seamlessly makes singers on key. Nothing is real. I can record a guitar signal direct into my recording system, then play it back through different amplifiers while recording them. That way I can have the exact same performance on guitar played through my choice of a Marshall or a Fender or a Peavey amplifier.
When you listen to music, do you adjust anything due to recording techniques? I don't, I just listen to the music, and I set up my system for the most pleasing sound. Unless I happen top look up a particular recording, I have no idea where or when it was recorded and by whom, let alone all the processing. The recording industry does not set out to faithfully reproduce the exact sound that occurred in the studio. They set out to create the most listenable sound. Many times there was no studio occurrence. The musicians may not have been there together at all, and in fact some may have been across the country or around the world when contributing their part.
recording is one art, while mastering is a totally separate part of it.
If your stereo system is accurate, it will reproduce the sound in the studio monitor speakers of the mastering desk.
I was watching a show about the music industry earlier this evening on public TV. They came to the band Boston. Tom Scholz was the mind behind Boston. yes, the same Tom Scholz of Rockman fame. He told us there was no "band" Boston. he recorded all the instruments himself, except the drums. he was amused that the record company never knew or found out that the recordings were made in his basement. Once the record took off, he put together a band to tour in support of the music. Point being, what you see and hear is not necessarily the truth. In show biz, it is the impression that matters, not the reality. It LOOKS like they saw the lady in half. It SOUNDS like a 20 person chorus, when it is the same person multitracked. I used to be a radio personality, and I did "live shows", which amounted to me sitting in the studio with an audience response sound track. Every studio has a pitch corrector. You can sing off key, and it will correct your pitch. Of course you can turn that effect up really high and it becomes a special effect. But used as intended, it seamlessly makes singers on key. Nothing is real. I can record a guitar signal direct into my recording system, then play it back through different amplifiers while recording them. That way I can have the exact same performance on guitar played through my choice of a Marshall or a Fender or a Peavey amplifier.
If you like Wired, then you will like Blow by Blow. SImilar sounding LPs stylistically. I like rock-jazz fusion myself. I liked early Stanley Clarke, and certainly Billy Cobham. Punchy stuff like the Brecker Brothers spoke to me.
If you have two different guitar signals coming from left and right, then it was two guitars. he plays one track, then records along with the playback to record a second track. This is not new, I recorded an 8 voice vocal tune doing all eight parts myself, and that was 50 years ago. Crudely done in the radio studio, but not hard.
If you have two different guitar signals coming from left and right, then it was two guitars. he plays one track, then records along with the playback to record a second track. This is not new, I recorded an 8 voice vocal tune doing all eight parts myself, and that was 50 years ago. Crudely done in the radio studio, but not hard.
I linked to one of the reader tapes in an above post, and pretty much agree with the experts on how the music should have been mixed, so that's encouraging to find common ground.
No of course not, there is no way to know how it was recorded.
I get this part. But I have heard that some recording engineers use terrible studio monitors So then the question becomes - how close can I make my speakers to sound like studio monitors, right? I mean that's Hi Fidelity.
Never thought that was possible!
Take a look at this set of tracks for example, the second on has more sizzle, the synth is mixed wide, and it's overall more artificial.
Is this what we want? To me recordings of live music have always sounded better, clearer.
He even discusses making the guitar sound louder at certain parts of the track. That's so unnatural.
Is this what we want? To me recordings of live music have always sounded better, clearer.
He even discusses making the guitar sound louder at certain parts of the track. That's so unnatural.
Most studios have a set of high quality monitors, but any good studio also has a pair of cheap speakers, because that is how the vast majority of listeners hear things. Table radios, cheap car stereos, etc. It has to sound OK on those, as well as good speakers.
Others may disagree, but I'd say make your system sound good to you, don't worry about the sound booth.
Impromptu live recordings can sound real crappy, or great, luck of the draw. "Live" recordings that were planned can sound terrific because they were professionally done. They prepared the stage for it, selected the mics for the conditions. Sometimes you see two mics, one for live and one for record, taped together on the mic stand. Recorded the tracks on pro gear, etc.
Others may disagree, but I'd say make your system sound good to you, don't worry about the sound booth.
Impromptu live recordings can sound real crappy, or great, luck of the draw. "Live" recordings that were planned can sound terrific because they were professionally done. They prepared the stage for it, selected the mics for the conditions. Sometimes you see two mics, one for live and one for record, taped together on the mic stand. Recorded the tracks on pro gear, etc.
So this is studio recording...
Enzo. Looks like you have been neck deep in music for a while.
So if I understand this, instead of picturing a studio full of musicians and equipment, I need to picture an almost empty studio with lots of tracks and musicians that come and go at different times.
I just found this audio recording of the Bee Gees composing "How Deep is Your Love" . The recording has some ethereal parts to it that are quite beautiful I think.
Then I listen to the final release, it seems to be made up of disparate recordings unlike below. I picture the Bee Gees singing in an empty studio with musical accompaniment, maybe a piano. The electric piano was added later, they say. Somehow the whole thing sounds like a song made up of several empty-studio tracks, added on to the main one. Maybe I am imagining things but the cross talk between the instruments, voice, room band, etc is not there.
That high hat, though goes on right through the song at the same volume like a machine, it's almost annoying.
So this is studio recording...
Enzo. Looks like you have been neck deep in music for a while.
So if I understand this, instead of picturing a studio full of musicians and equipment, I need to picture an almost empty studio with lots of tracks and musicians that come and go at different times.
I just found this audio recording of the Bee Gees composing "How Deep is Your Love" . The recording has some ethereal parts to it that are quite beautiful I think.
Then I listen to the final release, it seems to be made up of disparate recordings unlike below. I picture the Bee Gees singing in an empty studio with musical accompaniment, maybe a piano. The electric piano was added later, they say. Somehow the whole thing sounds like a song made up of several empty-studio tracks, added on to the main one. Maybe I am imagining things but the cross talk between the instruments, voice, room band, etc is not there.
That high hat, though goes on right through the song at the same volume like a machine, it's almost annoying.
So this is studio recording...
It very much depends on the Band and the producer.
Multi tracking is common with Rock and Pop because it allows more control in post production and allows for things like merging multiple guitar takes to thicken up the guitar sound (Very common with Metal acts), or for the entire drum kit to be replaced in post production (There are some very good software tools for doing this these days).
That said, you clearly cannot really multitrack a jazz band or orchestra, it just don't work.
In terms of studio speakers, there are usually a horribly expensive mid field system from the likes of PMC or such, in a expensively treated room (Actually the important bit), plus various small speakers (Auratone mixcubes are common, a full range driver in a box). MUCH effort is spent on trying to come up with something that sounds reasonable on a wide range of kit rather then something that works only on the good stuff, cheap headphones are increasingly a consideration as well.
I would also note that studio monitors tend to make poor hifi speakers, simply because the objective is different.
A good monitor in a good room (Again the room is probably at least as important as the speaker) allows a good engineer to listen for problems, and that is rather the point, you want to be able to tell that the bass is muddy or that the drum peddle has a bit of a rattle, or that some plonker has taken their mobile phone into the room and it is interfering with the guitar amp.... Involving to listen to is not a design objective with these boxes.
To a great extent the technology (once you get past the transducers) is a solved problem, we can now record things trivially well enough that listening on the input and output side of the recorder does not sound meaningfully different, that was an impossible dream back in the 80's.
One last thought, the SSL and Neave mixing desks common in big studios are probably the greatest concentration of 5532 opamps on the planet, almost everything that gets recorded in one of the big rooms sees dozens of the things....
Regards, Dan.
Multi tracking is common with Rock and Pop because it allows more control in post production and allows for things like merging multiple guitar takes to thicken up the guitar sound (Very common with Metal acts), or for the entire drum kit to be replaced in post production (There are some very good software tools for doing this these days).
That said, you clearly cannot really multitrack a jazz band or orchestra, it just don't work.
In terms of studio speakers, there are usually a horribly expensive mid field system from the likes of PMC or such, in a expensively treated room (Actually the important bit), plus various small speakers (Auratone mixcubes are common, a full range driver in a box). MUCH effort is spent on trying to come up with something that sounds reasonable on a wide range of kit rather then something that works only on the good stuff, cheap headphones are increasingly a consideration as well.
I would also note that studio monitors tend to make poor hifi speakers, simply because the objective is different.
A good monitor in a good room (Again the room is probably at least as important as the speaker) allows a good engineer to listen for problems, and that is rather the point, you want to be able to tell that the bass is muddy or that the drum peddle has a bit of a rattle, or that some plonker has taken their mobile phone into the room and it is interfering with the guitar amp.... Involving to listen to is not a design objective with these boxes.
To a great extent the technology (once you get past the transducers) is a solved problem, we can now record things trivially well enough that listening on the input and output side of the recorder does not sound meaningfully different, that was an impossible dream back in the 80's.
One last thought, the SSL and Neave mixing desks common in big studios are probably the greatest concentration of 5532 opamps on the planet, almost everything that gets recorded in one of the big rooms sees dozens of the things....
Regards, Dan.
I was thinking about this a little while ago - how do you preserve the ambience of an orchestral piece using a multi track layered approach?
To put it simply, don't you get a different sound from recording each part of the orchestra, strings, horns, drums, violins, woodwinds separately small rooms or large rooms for that matter, and then combining (mixing) the recordings? I would imagine that it would sound strange and unnatural.
This is the same concern I have listening to pop recordings - lots of instruments in empty rooms and all spliced together - what about the effect of the sound bouncing off other instruments, let alone the effect of having a large air space for the recording? The room may be treated to absorb sound, but I feel it's not the same as recording a full band with all its members playing at the same time.
A note on drum machines:
https://mic.com/articles/113504/sci...s-will-never-replace-live-drummers#.BEC0wMtiB
https://mic.com/articles/113504/sci...s-will-never-replace-live-drummers#.BEC0wMtiB
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.