|
Post by subspace on May 5, 2017 18:12:15 GMT -6
If it's newly purchased vinyl, it's far more likely being played through a Crosley portable record player's built-in speakers. Alternated with the blue tooth feed from a phone of course.
I just went back to cassette, my generation's mp3 ripper. So much stuff I had cassette references of that never made it to a digital format.
Bought a $27 cassette walkman that's USB powered, comes up as a fixed 48k input source when you plug it into the Mac. Fits in my cup holder in the car, rockin my 80s-90s ref mixes on the way to work. Wonder what engineer decided a cassette transfer interface should be 48k only?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,019
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on May 5, 2017 18:16:09 GMT -6
If it's newly purchased vinyl, it's far more likely being played through a Crosley portable record player's built-in speakers. Alternated with the blue tooth feed from a phone of course. I just went back to cassette, my generation's mp3 ripper. So much stuff I had cassette references of that never made it to a digital format. Bought a $27 cassette walkman that's USB powered, comes up as a fixed 48k input source when you plug it into the Mac. Fits in my cup holder in the car, rockin my 80s-90s ref mixes on the way to work. Wonder what engineer decided a cassette transfer interface should be 48k only? Somebody looked at the Frequency response distortion and wow and flutter?
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on May 5, 2017 22:40:49 GMT -6
I've made a bunch of records that have been released on vinyl. Most of the time the vinyl is a novelty item for sale along with the bands merch. They can charge 19-25 bucks a pop. MOST of the time that is why bands make vinyl these days. MOST of the records I've made that have been released on vinyl sound pretty god awful on the vinyl. I think it's because nobody cares at that point. I am almost NEVER invited to participate in the cutting. In fact, I don't know who is cutting it or where. I DO know that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to cut your vinyl master from anything but a digital file. I'm guessing there's people out there who do but I don't know of any.
I have done a couple records for audiophile labels that DO care about the vinyl and I was involved in the process and great care is taken to produce a great vinyl master and... Thing of beauty. On a great hi-fi, oh my lord it's lovely. Even on my old Sony system. BUT...still cut from a digital file.
Pete Lyman at infrasonic is cutting a record for me this month. He mastered it from tape. We tracked and mixed on tape. He's cutting from a digital file. He also had us cut songs off the album so we could get running time below 20 minutes a side. He cares.
You can hear a clear difference between first printing, heavy vinyl releases and later, cheaper printings of albums. It's not subtle.
A bit random and off topic but on my mind because I'm mixing a record as we speak that's getting cut at an audiophile house in Holland next month. I've been learning quite a bit working for/with a few people that know a LOT.
I'd never say vinyl is better...just that I like it a lot when it's done well. When it's not...take the record right off and listen to it off my iPhone.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 5, 2017 22:58:50 GMT -6
There's something that's really bothering me about the basic premise of this thread. "Mix it like vinyl" - WTF? You mix the music the way the music needs to be mixed. You don't "mix it for vinyl" or "mix it for cassette" or "Mix it for digital download". That way of thinking is totally, utterly WRONG !
Mix the MUSIC! Use your freakin' EARS!
Sure, pay attention to the basic engineering constraints of the medium, but don't "mix for digital", or vinyl, or a freakin' tin can with string.
MIX THE DAMN MUSIC!
Use your EARS, that's what they're there for!
If it ends up sounding like a demo, maybe you need to do some more work on the tracks.
There's a dirty little secret that far too many people try to ignore, and far too many software pimps try to hide because doing so makes them rich, and that is this - YOU CAN'T "FIX IT IN THE MIX"! The best you can hope for is to stick a band-aid over a spurting wound.
This gets really, diabolically difficult when working by yourself on your own stuff because you lose objectivity, but it's truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 23:32:05 GMT -6
Actually modern high resolution audio formats give the freedom to mix things like you could/can definitely not make working on vinyl. Actually, the mastering engineer is the one who has to make sure the needle does not jump due to funky basses and similar stuff... So, vinyl is limiting. I definitely don't want to hear Beck's Sea Change or Morning Phase on vinyl. It sounds so good, why degrading this with noise, crackles and "warmth" that the artist never intended. I was raised with vinyl amped by good german valves and yes, it had something to it for the 60's singles my father had and that i listened to all afternoon as soon as i was allowed to use the radiogram, Nowadays, transistor distortion is more trendy than valve distortion, i guess, this changes from time to time depending on what hits the charts. (Even digital clipping distortion will be a thing of the "good old times" soon, or is it already?) Izotope Vinyl? Anyone using it? As far as i noticed it consciously, it is mostly used on club tracks and pop music. It is the DJ thing, that is mentioned. I really think this is the main reason for the renaissance of vinyl. People want the sound and flair of the club athmosphere and analog DJ performances. Be your own DJ at home and impress the hipster fans. No way i am going back to vinyl - i just get rid of physical media completely, wherever possible, and try to get high resolution files - quite the opposite to going back to vinyl. Would i use a radiogram and a stack of 60's vinyl singles to have fun for an afternoon? SURE. I also have nostalgic feelings about this. But would i buy a vinyl player again and start to collect? No, please ... i want to hear the best music that comes my way in the way it was intended by the artist. And i am burning for the things to come from artists and engineers that try to max out the possibilities of the technically best formats available, and we are near to perfect IMHO, 24 bit and 88 or 96kHz!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 23:41:57 GMT -6
You can always make your digital production sound like vinyl by degrading... Actually, i wonder when the first "vinyl mode" switch appears on consumer equipment and smartphone player software.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on May 6, 2017 0:20:21 GMT -6
Ok John .....Usually I ignore your posts because they are always negative and add NOTHING to threads . I even have you on ignore because its a waste of time even reading your posts . But I will waste my time giving you this response . First off I never said "I think vinyl is muddy or lacking highs" .... I really wish you actually read posts before you made responses . "But then you'd think "most" people would say Vinyl is too muddy and missing too much highs , but a lot of these people grew on digital and still say they prefer Vinyl . If you could pinpoint an age group , older folks who grew up on it and the young kids today , as the Vinyl lovers then there shouldn't be much people inbetween those two groups that love vinyl ........but thinking Vinyl sounds better is a general overall belief ." And the whole premise of the thread is IF YOU MAKE A MIX SOUND LIKE A VINYL MIX AND DELIVER IT IN THE DIGITAL FORMAT "PEOPLE" WILL THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE A DEMO COMPARED TO OTHER ALL DIGITAL SONGS........ Understand now I'm trying to make my posts as simple as possible so you can understand because for some reason you have a hard time understanding. "If I posted a digital mix of mine that used a Vinyl record as a reference and imitated its sound (but didn't say I was going for a Vinyl style mix) , everyone that praises Vinyl would say my mix doesn't sound good......sounds like a Demo ." I wanted to discuss why a Vinyl mix is considered the best , yet if you deliver that same type of mix in Digital form it would be unacceptable and sounds like a Demo ?" Theres some more quotes . YES PEOPLE APPROACH MIXING TO VINYL DIFFERENT THAN DIGITAL . Vinyl can't take as much highs because it will distort and can't take as much bass or it will make the needle jump . But Digital you can crank the highs and bass and thats what people do . So yes the approach is much different . And this is why I grow tired of forums . They really are a waste of time . Too many people don't actually read posts , but just want to jump in with their opinion and prove they are right . Whatever . Real life is way too fun than to waste on the internet . So I'm done wasting my time here . John post all you want . We all need your genius and wisdom .
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 6, 2017 1:23:36 GMT -6
Ok John .....Usually I ignore your posts because they are always negative and add NOTHING to threads . I even have you on ignore because its a waste of time even reading your posts . But I will waste my time giving you this response . First off I never said "I think vinyl is muddy or lacking highs" .... I really wish you actually read posts before you made responses . "But then you'd think "most" people would say Vinyl is too muddy and missing too much highs , but a lot of these people grew on digital and still say they prefer Vinyl . If you could pinpoint an age group , older folks who grew up on it and the young kids today , as the Vinyl lovers then there shouldn't be much people inbetween those two groups that love vinyl ........but thinking Vinyl sounds better is a general overall belief ." And the whole premise of the thread is IF YOU MAKE A MIX SOUND LIKE A VINYL MIX AND DELIVER IT IN THE DIGITAL FORMAT "PEOPLE" WILL THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE A DEMO COMPARED TO OTHER ALL DIGITAL SONGS........ Understand now I'm trying to make my posts as simple as possible so you can understand because for some reason you have a hard time understanding. "If I posted a digital mix of mine that used a Vinyl record as a reference and imitated its sound (but didn't say I was going for a Vinyl style mix) , everyone that praises Vinyl would say my mix doesn't sound good......sounds like a Demo ." I wanted to discuss why a Vinyl mix is considered the best , yet if you deliver that same type of mix in Digital form it would be unacceptable and sounds like a Demo ?" Theres some more quotes . YES PEOPLE APPROACH MIXING TO VINYL DIFFERENT THAN DIGITAL . Vinyl can't take as much highs because it will distort and can't take as much bass or it will make the needle jump . But Digital you can crank the highs and bass and thats what people do . So yes the approach is much different . And this is why I grow tired of forums . They really are a waste of time . Too many people don't actually read posts , but just want to jump in with their opinion and prove they are right . Whatever . Real life is way too fun than to waste on the internet . So I'm done wasting my time here . John post all you want . We all need your genius and wisdom . My posts aren't negative at all - I just don't happen to agree with your preconceptions that you've picked up on Gearslutz, YouTube and gear mags that are all not-too-subtly trying to sell you something. And of course you're missing the point, as usual - the point being that all those digital "fake vinyl" things are essentially a wank, don't actually sound like vinyl, and nobody who was actually mixing a vinyl release would even think of using such a thing. You said "Mix it like vinyl" - well, one doesn't (or shouldn't) mix vinyl different from anything else. Because vinyl is a medium, not an effect. You don't do "a vinyl type of mix". You do a mix. Why would you be doing that in the first place? Is your "reference" a brand new, pristine copy from a first pressing? No? Because if it isn't then you're using a degraded reference. Stampers wear out. Mothers wear out, too. And then the vinyl itself starts wearing out as soon as you start playing it (unless you happen to have one of those $8,000 laser record turntables that doesn't touch the grooves with a needle.) Even if you have a top quality tuntable, perfectly aligned, with a brand new needle it will still cause SOME amount of wear each time the record is played. And most people don't keep their turntables maintained all that well. (And don't even get me started on those bulldozers the DJs use on records.....) If they're idiots, perhaps. Too much reading gear mags pushing "vinylizer" plugins, I guess. But you don't MIX to that. ( Or you shouldn't if you have any sense.) Fitting the the mix to the delivery format is the job of the MASTERING ENGINEER, not the mix engineer. (It's why vinyl MEs use microscopes.) In fact that's the primary job of a mastering engineer. That's where mastering started. It's actually possible to get surprisingly good bass on a vinyl disk. I've heard disk recordings of the 1812 Overture that would make you jump if you didn't know what was coming. (JBL Paragon speaker system, Harmen-Kardon Citation I & II preamp and power amp set, 80 tube watts/channel. Back in 1967.) The trade-off, of course, is level, but that's what volume controls are for. (yes, the background noise increasesa a bit, but you don't notice when the music's playing.) Then you said "But it sounds like a Demo"...... Well, you mixed it that way, didn't you? What are you complaining about? I don't get what your problem is - if you're doing a mix for a real vinyl release it shouldn't "sound like a demo", it should sound like a vinyl record. If it "sounds like a demo" then you (or somebody after you in the production chain) are doing something wrong. Vinyl is a medium, not an effect.
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on May 6, 2017 8:30:29 GMT -6
Y'now, sometimes debate is interesting, sometimes I get insight regarding things I was unaware of, and sometimes the vitriol gets so off putting I promise myself never to get caught up in it again. That said, I don't care what facts or figures people present or why's and wherefore's, and why "I'm wrong", vinyl feels much better to me, whatever the reason, there's something going on that we may not be able to fully explain yet. I'd guess that digital, no matter how high the resolution inherently is missing parts of the whole picture, and I think we sense it somehow. I also get that a digitally recorded album put onto vinyl can only present what it gets, not add anything, and still, albums I've heard on vinyl that were done digitally still sounded better to me. I can't say exactly why, but they do. Former SOTA /Audio Research/ Magnepan owner, Vinyl isn't better its compromises are different . Vinyl is the sonic reference many of us grew up hearing and probably formed our sonic expectations. Vinyl is a ritualistic experience, vinyl is about the long play not the short, it's about the heyday of the music biz. It is not some magic elixir that can repair a bad digital recording, that is an emotional response to the experience and yes emotion is an integral part of any musical experience, we have to seperate that. I'll wager and having recently experienced way to many " high quality " reissues that suffer from sources that have suffered at the hands of time and the promised savior of modern DSP I'll argue it's far from the best of both worlds it's for the most part the worst sonic wise, but the experience is grand ! Yes.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 6, 2017 15:20:43 GMT -6
You can always make your digital production sound like vinyl by degrading... Actually, i wonder when the first "vinyl mode" switch appears on consumer equipment and smartphone player software. Well, no, you can't. None of those "vinylizer" plugings really sound like a nice, fresh early production vinyl pressing - or at least not a well done one, there are a lot of disks pressed that are NOT well made. Most of those plugins make your music sound like a disk that's been run over several times by a large car in a gravel driveway, after having been played to death on a misaligned turntable with a dull, chipped needle. And yes, there are limitations to the medium, not all unbeneficial. Sometimes having to work within limitations acxtually makes a BETTER product. There are far too many "modern" digital recordings that I find pretty unlistenable. Like maybe 90% of "modern" commercial pop. Maybe part of the charm of a good vinyl recording is that the medium prevents people from doing (at least some of) the most egregious forms of stupid stuff...? A good recording should make people want to turn it UP, not turn it down.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 6, 2017 15:39:43 GMT -6
Y'now, sometimes debate is interesting, sometimes I get insight regarding things I was unaware of, and sometimes the vitriol gets so off putting I promise myself never to get caught up in it again. That said, I don't care what facts or figures people present or why's and wherefore's, and why "I'm wrong", vinyl feels much better to me, whatever the reason, there's something going on that we may not be able to fully explain yet. I'd guess that digital, no matter how high the resolution inherently is missing parts of the whole picture, and I think we sense it somehow. I also get that a digitally recorded album put onto vinyl can only present what it gets, not add anything, and still, albums I've heard on vinyl that were done digitally still sounded better to me. I can't say exactly why, but they do. Former SOTA /Audio Research/ Magnepan owner, Vinyl isn't better its compromises are different . Vinyl is the sonic reference many of us grew up hearing and probably formed our sonic expectations. Vinyl is a ritualistic experience, vinyl is about the long play not the short, it's about the heyday of the music biz. True. Better? What is "Better?" Some figures on paper? No. Better, as referring to art, is all about the aesthetic experience. You can't qualify or quantify that with figures and measurements. You can only judge that by emotion and reaction. No, it is not, quite the contrary. And applying stupid "vinylizer" plugins is not merely a farce, it's a farce that isn't funny. And it's a fraud that doesn't actually do what it claims. It doesn't make a digital recording sound like vinyl. It makes a recording sound like a record that has been ruined. How do you separate something that is integral? That's not the fault of the vinyl medium. That's the fault of bozos who don't understand the art of audio and who listen with their bank statements. (And fail to understand that their bank statements would actually be much better if they left their money grubbing paws off the music...) I disagree, aesthetically speaking. I could give a damn what the machines say - but I don't, as machines have no heart. No argument there! And that's what it's all about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 19:07:35 GMT -6
You can always make your digital production sound like vinyl by degrading... Actually, i wonder when the first "vinyl mode" switch appears on consumer equipment and smartphone player software. Well, no, you can't. None of those "vinylizer" plugings really sound like a nice, fresh early production vinyl pressing - or at least not a well done one, there are a lot of disks pressed that are NOT well made. Most of those plugins make your music sound like a disk that's been run over several times by a large car in a gravel driveway, after having been played to death on a misaligned turntable with a dull, chipped needle. And yes, there are limitations to the medium, not all unbeneficial. Sometimes having to work within limitations acxtually makes a BETTER product. There are far too many "modern" digital recordings that I find pretty unlistenable. Like maybe 90% of "modern" commercial pop. Maybe part of the charm of a good vinyl recording is that the medium prevents people from doing (at least some of) the most egregious forms of stupid stuff...? A good recording should make people want to turn it UP, not turn it down. I am pretty sure, you could make a "vinylizer" that really earns the title with an engine like nebula. I do not see any reason, why not. The vinylizer plugins that are available are meant as "effect", maybe in the beginning or end of a song - or to sound like a broken record, as you said. On purpose. Of course the single effects are exaggerated. It is not meant to be a serious "best of vinyl sounds" plugin at all. Nevertheless, you *can* use some elements in very slight doses in a mix, why not. I prefer Mixbus tape saturation, which really does, what i want most of the time. "It does not sound like tape." Oh, well. But it does the job excellently... Vinyl is no hyper magic music polish, as tape is not. And of course there are also ridiculously exaggerated tape emu plugins that wow and flutter the shit out of the source - it *is* funny, as long as it is used creatively. I don't find "vinyl sound" appealing in any other way than a nostalgic one. I would not even take my old Bang&Olufsen player back. And it was a damn good player....
|
|
|
Post by Pueblo Audio on May 6, 2017 19:43:52 GMT -6
I have had the good fortune to have engineered a number of direct-to-disc projects. Performance, mixing and cutting all happen in one step. Simultaneously, we had also printed to 1/4" tape, 2496 and DSD digital. All gear top of the line and then modded beyond. Everything trimmed within 0.1dB of each other, and being fed the same mix. an even playing field.
The revelation of this is that after a take was completed, the artists and production crew could hear an immediate playback of what was just performed; with the music's mojo still in our hearts... A/B/C/D...A/B/C/D... "what is D? That's the one that is US!"
Everytime it was the lacquer. EVERYTIME without hesitation.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 6, 2017 20:57:33 GMT -6
Well, no, you can't. None of those "vinylizer" plugings really sound like a nice, fresh early production vinyl pressing - or at least not a well done one, there are a lot of disks pressed that are NOT well made. Most of those plugins make your music sound like a disk that's been run over several times by a large car in a gravel driveway, after having been played to death on a misaligned turntable with a dull, chipped needle. And yes, there are limitations to the medium, not all unbeneficial. Sometimes having to work within limitations acxtually makes a BETTER product. There are far too many "modern" digital recordings that I find pretty unlistenable. Like maybe 90% of "modern" commercial pop. Maybe part of the charm of a good vinyl recording is that the medium prevents people from doing (at least some of) the most egregious forms of stupid stuff...? A good recording should make people want to turn it UP, not turn it down. I am pretty sure, you could make a "vinylizer" that really earns the title with an engine like nebula. I do not see any reason, why not. The vinylizer plugins that are available are meant as "effect", maybe in the beginning or end of a song - or to sound like a broken record, as you said. On purpose. Of course the single effects are exaggerated. It is not meant to be a serious "best of vinyl sounds" plugin at all. Nevertheless, you *can* use some elements in very slight doses in a mix, why not. I prefer Mixbus tape saturation, which really does, what i want most of the time. "It does not sound like tape." Oh, well. But it does the job excellently... Vinyl is no hyper magic music polish, as tape is not. And of course there are also ridiculously exaggerated tape emu plugins that wow and flutter the shit out of the source - it *is* funny, as long as it is used creatively. I don't find "vinyl sound" appealing in any other way than a nostalgic one. I would not even take my old Bang&Olufsen player back. And it was a damn good player.... Well, yeah, perhaps it might be possible for somebody really good with nebula to make a vinylizer that neither sucked horribly nor was a stupid, overblown effect but to my knowledge nobody's done it - and in my opinion nobody is likely to either because why would you? At best you're going to get "soyburger", without the alleged nutritional, religious, or moral benefits. But then you're faced with the question of what you're going to use for the vinyl to be emulated. And since the reesult wouldn't be the kind of exaggerated, cartoonish effect that the kind of people who constitute a market for that sort of thing are looking for, nobody would probably buy it. Butr still, the whole idea of "Mix it like Vinyl" is so far off base as to be in another solar system. Nobody mixing in the days when vinyl was the dominant format "mixed for vinyl". You do the best mix you can with the material you have to work with. The very idea of "mixing like vinyl" is nothing but interwewbz amateur hot air - no real mix engineer would do that or even think of it. If you take your mix to the cutting engineer and he points out something that needs adjustment you'd maybe go back and fix it if it was an insurmountable problem otherwise but you certainly wouldn't "mix for vinyl"' There is so much utter nonsense floating around the internet, mostly spread by "experts" who weren't there, don't know, and probably have neveer in their lives even discussed it with anybody who was. And if the did have the opportunity to do so they wouldn't listen and would insult the person attempting to educate them.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 6, 2017 21:07:03 GMT -6
I have had the good fortune to have engineered a number of direct-to-disc projects. Performance, mixing and cutting all happen in one step. Simultaneously, we had also printed to 1/4" tape, 2496 and DSD digital. All gear top of the line and then modded beyond. Everything trimmed within 0.1dB of each other, and being fed the same mix. an even playing field. The revelation of this is that after a take was completed, the artists and production crew could hear an immediate playback of what was just performed; with the music's mojo still in our hearts... A/B/C/D...A/B/C/D... "what is D? That's the one that is US!" Everytime it was the lacquer. EVERYTIME without hesitation. /\THIS/\. The majority of mass produced vinyl is badly degraded by the manufacturing process, which gets quite expensive if you want a uniformly top quality product. Very, very few people have actually heard whatr the medium is truly capable of. A long time ago I was associated with a group of very critical top quality audiophiles (before "audiophile" became a dirty word) and had the opportunityt to hear a few direct to disk pressings on some extremely high quality systems and, well, most people just don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 22:58:01 GMT -6
OK. i am out.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 7, 2017 6:54:58 GMT -6
Well, yeah, perhaps it might be possible for somebody really good with nebula to make a vinylizer that neither sucked horribly nor was a stupid, overblown effect but to my knowledge nobody's done it - and in my opinion nobody is likely to either because why would you? At best you're going to get "soyburger", without the alleged nutritional, religious, or moral benefits. But then you're faced with the question of what you're going to use for the vinyl to be emulated. And since the reesult wouldn't be the kind of exaggerated, cartoonish effect that the kind of people who constitute a market for that sort of thing are looking for, nobody would probably buy it. Butr still, the whole idea of "Mix it like Vinyl" is so far off base as to be in another solar system. Nobody mixing in the days when vinyl was the dominant format "mixed for vinyl". You do the best mix you can with the material you have to work with. The very idea of "mixing like vinyl" is nothing but interwewbz amateur hot air - no real mix engineer would do that or even think of it. If you take your mix to the cutting engineer and he points out something that needs adjustment you'd maybe go back and fix it if it was an insurmountable problem otherwise but you certainly wouldn't "mix for vinyl"' There is so much utter nonsense floating around the internet, mostly spread by "experts" who weren't there, don't know, and probably have neveer in their lives even discussed it with anybody who was. And if the did have the opportunity to do so they wouldn't listen and would insult the person attempting to educate them. Hey man, the amount of derogatory comments that you post towards others is shocking. Since you're acting as an expert who was there, how about posting some links to some records that you mixed so we can hear how great you are rather that just spouting hot air about it? Every thread you post in, you're spouting the same shit about how others know nothing and it's your way or the highway, basically. Nobody here likes your attitude. If you want some respect, try to act more like a peer and not a demigod.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on May 7, 2017 8:43:47 GMT -6
scumbum I get your point 100% As a guy with a moderately well outfitted analog studio I am asked all the time to make something sound like such and such old record. Often when I listen to the reference with my producer/mixer ears I end up scratching my head like, "If I turn in mixes like these I'll be fired." This does not sound great...vinyl or not. But if I listen with my heart (to be a little hippie about it) I can sometimes understand what the client is hearing. I've come to the conclusion that people don't want to sound like old records as much as they want to have the same emotional reaction to their music as they have when they listen to whatever old record they referenced. THAT is why I personally am chasing the older sound and trying to retain some of that old "magic" in my quite modern sounding productions. There are technical aspects to consider when I'm after that sound but there are "market" considerations to balance those out. I love the sound of the Daptone records on vinyl AND digital. Those folks have it pretty wired. Don't sound like demos to me. I'm also crazy about the records that White Denim is making...on vinyl and digital. They capture the sound of older records but they still seem modern and competitive. I've had the discussion many times, with peers, about achieving a vintage top end with a modern bottom end and competitive loudness and impact without the sound and/or the artifacts of modern compression. I'd say that's my journey in recording. I'm not there yet but I'm still after it. It's not been the easy road for sure but it's where my ears lead me. So...I get your post for sure but I also understand the drive to pull it off. I NEVER do a "vinyl" mix, even when I know the project will be released on high quality viny, but I DO often go for a certain vintage sensibility that harkens back to the days of vinyl...even when I'm mixing in the box.
|
|
|
Post by jin167 on May 7, 2017 9:55:18 GMT -6
ah... it's always fun to watch those who struggle to keep up with time and try so desperately to hold on to their past glory days.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 7, 2017 10:52:10 GMT -6
scumbum I get your point 100% As a guy with a moderately well outfitted analog studio I am asked all the time to make something sound like such and such old record. Often when I listen to the reference with my producer/mixer ears I end up scratching my head like, "If I turn in mixes like these I'll be fired." This does not sound great...vinyl or not. But if I listen with my heart (to be a little hippie about it) I can sometimes understand what the client is hearing. I've come to the conclusion that people don't want to sound like old records as much as they want to have the same emotional reaction to their music as they have when they listen to whatever old record they referenced. THAT is why I personally am chasing the older sound and trying to retain some of that old "magic" in my quite modern sounding productions. There are technical aspects to consider when I'm after that sound but there are "market" considerations to balance those out. I love the sound of the Daptone records on vinyl AND digital. Those folks have it pretty wired. Don't sound like demos to me. I'm also crazy about the records that White Denim is making...on vinyl and digital. They capture the sound of older records but they still seem modern and competitive. I've had the discussion many times, with peers, about achieving a vintage top end with a modern bottom end and competitive loudness and impact without the sound and/or the artifacts of modern compression. I'd say that's my journey in recording. I'm not there yet but I'm still after it. It's not been the easy road for sure but it's where my ears lead me. So...I get your post for sure but I also understand the drive to pull it off. I NEVER do a "vinyl" mix, even when I know the project will be released on high quality viny, but I DO often go for a certain vintage sensibility that harkens back to the days of vinyl...even when I'm mixing in the box. Yes Noah!!! There are so many things that we attribute to the "sound" of a record / era. Tape is certainly one of them. Vinyl is another. The general equipment, mics, etc. used is a third. But the one thing that seems generally glossed over is the STYLE of production - bleed, musicians all cutting at the same time, musicianship, etc.. Also, not trying to make everything "perfect". (IMO, if you can pull back from the emotional component - that's why some of those recording sound like "demo's".) There is a LOT that goes into making a record sound like a particular era, and mixing alone or a particular piece of gear will not get you there. It's a production esthetic that spans the entire production - from first note written, to last song mastered. I think I have a bit of an easier time heading that direction because I lived and worked thru at least the end part of that era. I miss the days of all musicians coming together to track at the same time, in the same room. When we finished a track, it was 85-90% done. I feel blessed to have some of the wrecking crew guys (most notably don r) as some of my mentors. If you're looking for that sound, try to get there starting with the writing, and then with every production stage onward. There are some amazing recordings being made in 2017 that sound modern AND vintage.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 7, 2017 16:36:23 GMT -6
Well, yeah, perhaps it might be possible for somebody really good with nebula to make a vinylizer that neither sucked horribly nor was a stupid, overblown effect but to my knowledge nobody's done it - and in my opinion nobody is likely to either because why would you? At best you're going to get "soyburger", without the alleged nutritional, religious, or moral benefits. But then you're faced with the question of what you're going to use for the vinyl to be emulated. And since the reesult wouldn't be the kind of exaggerated, cartoonish effect that the kind of people who constitute a market for that sort of thing are looking for, nobody would probably buy it. Butr still, the whole idea of "Mix it like Vinyl" is so far off base as to be in another solar system. Nobody mixing in the days when vinyl was the dominant format "mixed for vinyl". You do the best mix you can with the material you have to work with. The very idea of "mixing like vinyl" is nothing but interwewbz amateur hot air - no real mix engineer would do that or even think of it. If you take your mix to the cutting engineer and he points out something that needs adjustment you'd maybe go back and fix it if it was an insurmountable problem otherwise but you certainly wouldn't "mix for vinyl"' There is so much utter nonsense floating around the internet, mostly spread by "experts" who weren't there, don't know, and probably have neveer in their lives even discussed it with anybody who was. And if the did have the opportunity to do so they wouldn't listen and would insult the person attempting to educate them. Hey man, the amount of derogatory comments that you post towards others is shocking. Since you're acting as an expert who was there, how about posting some links to some records that you mixed so we can hear how great you are rather that just spouting hot air about it? Every thread you post in, you're spouting the same shit about how others know nothing and it's your way or the highway, basically. Nobody here likes your attitude. If you want some respect, try to act more like a peer and not a demigod. First, nothing I say is intended to be derogatory towards individuals, however there are a lot of misconceptions and misinformation floating around the internet and a lot of it gets "codified" if nobody presents an alternate viewpoint. OTOH I find myself the target of insults and personal attacks on a fairly regular basis. If there's anything "personal" in my attutude it involves people who actively defend ignorance. An example would be the type of person who posts something seeking validation for a misguided technique or attitude under the guise of a discussion or question and then gets muilitantly bent out of shape when they get an answer that doesn't agree with them. Ignorance is not a sin. We are all born in a state of ignorance. The sin is when somebody vehemently defends their ignorance in the face of an attempt at education. In this case we are asked why "doing a mix to sound like vinyl" instead results in something that "sounds like a demo". Well, the answer (which seems pretty obvious to me) is that the people making that vinyl record you're wanting to emulate were not intentionally degrading the sound quality, although they were working within the limitations of the medium. If you want it to sound like a hot release from the "golden age of vinyl" you have to deal with the production the same way that the engineers and producers did on what you're trying to emulate. Buy to do that is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. You can't get it out of a box and you can't get it by following superficial "rules" in processing based on what some guy who was never involved in the process says about "limited bandwidth" or whatever. I'm fortunate in that when I was working as an assistant to Sandy Pearlman I had the great good fortune to sit in on some attended mastering sessions with the great Paul Stubblebine, who very kindly taught me (the dumb kid) the basic concepts involved in the process of transferring the master tape to vinyl. I'll tell you this - Sandy NEVER intentionally compromised a master to "adapt" it to vinyl. He delivered the best mix he possibly could and then worked with Paul to get that mix to translate to the vinyl medium. No, I am in no way qualified to run the lathe or to apply the processing used in the transfer. But I DID get to learn about it from one of the masters (enough to understand what's going on with it, anyway), and I feel a duty to try to pass on that knowledge, especially since so much is being lost so rapidly. Second, not everybody who works a recording session gets to have their name on the record. I'm in my mid-60s now but I was just a kid back when I was learning from the older guys, many of whom aren't around anymore. Somebody has to present the more traditional viewpoint. Not everything new is a good thing, which is something that took me a long time to finally fully comprehend - I used to be an early adopter, always chasing the latest thing, rejecting anything old. Well, it's taken a long time but I've pretty much come full circle. Specifically, I've come to the viewpoint that technology for its own sake often interferes with art, and the people marketing some of those new products sometimes spread toxic ideas. As that relates to this topic, wouldn't you agree that if you really want the kind of vibe that you get from a good, classic vinyl release you should study how records like that were actually produced and not rely on cheap snake oil that promises an easy result in a box? Personally, I find the idea of a plugin that has the function of adding in precisely the things that everyone was trying to eliminate in the making of records to be rather odious, same thing with people preaching "techniques" that serve the same function. As our friend Scumbum observed, it doesn't actually make your record sound like vinyl, it makes it sound like a demo.(Why do I not find this surprising?) The problem I have with Scumbum's attitude is that he then goes blaming "vinyl" for the bad sound, when what he's doing doesn't have anything to do with vinyl production techniques and has everything to do with exploitative product marketing and bad information. And won't even consider for one second that maybe he's going about it the wrong way. The reason people love vinyl isn't because it has ticks, pops, and background noise. People don't love vinyl because of those limitations that had to be worked around. People love vinyl in spite of those things*. People love vinyl because of the production values of the era (which have largely fallen by the wayside with the demise of the studio system and traditional industry) and because of certain aesthetic qualities that are difficult to impossible to define and reduce to specifications. Specs don't tell you everything. Specs don't tell you a lot.
However you can get pretty far by emulating the traditional production ethic and process. A lot of people these days don't like being told that there are no shortcuts, no "magic answers", no "secrets", no real solutions in a box. I find this distressing. Don't you? In the vinyl era everybody was doing everything they could to produce the best records possible. If somebody had suggested using a "worstener" to add flaws or employing techniques to internationally degrade frequency response they would have been laughed out of the studio. I'm still learning. However the process has slowed down considerably since the old days, partly because now I tend to wait for others to make the early adopter mistakes and partly because with the demise of the traditional studio system there is no longer a clear, direct path to the real lore and the information available on the internet is badly diluted with misinformation and conjecture. I've spent most of the last fifteen years building a rig that is more or less capable of implementing what I learned back then. Most of the first five or so years of that was unlearning "modern" stuff that I'd picked up on the internet and from the gear press during the period when I wasn't active in the industry. * - Far from seeking ticks, pops, and hiss, people used to return records that were found to contain those flaws.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 7, 2017 16:57:32 GMT -6
johneppstein runs hot, brutally honest, and doesn't mince words, but I don't find him offensive. I either agree with him or at least take his statements as his own entrenched opinion. He's been around the block more than most of us.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 7, 2017 17:02:10 GMT -6
scumbum I get your point 100% As a guy with a moderately well outfitted analog studio I am asked all the time to make something sound like such and such old record. Often when I listen to the reference with my producer/mixer ears I end up scratching my head like, "If I turn in mixes like these I'll be fired." This does not sound great...vinyl or not. But if I listen with my heart (to be a little hippie about it) I can sometimes understand what the client is hearing. I've come to the conclusion that people don't want to sound like old records as much as they want to have the same emotional reaction to their music as they have when they listen to whatever old record they referenced. THAT is why I personally am chasing the older sound and trying to retain some of that old "magic" in my quite modern sounding productions. There are technical aspects to consider when I'm after that sound but there are "market" considerations to balance those out. I love the sound of the Daptone records on vinyl AND digital. Those folks have it pretty wired. Don't sound like demos to me. I'm also crazy about the records that White Denim is making...on vinyl and digital. They capture the sound of older records but they still seem modern and competitive. I've had the discussion many times, with peers, about achieving a vintage top end with a modern bottom end and competitive loudness and impact without the sound and/or the artifacts of modern compression. I'd say that's my journey in recording. I'm not there yet but I'm still after it. It's not been the easy road for sure but it's where my ears lead me. So...I get your post for sure but I also understand the drive to pull it off. I NEVER do a "vinyl" mix, even when I know the project will be released on high quality viny, but I DO often go for a certain vintage sensibility that harkens back to the days of vinyl...even when I'm mixing in the box. Yes Noah!!! There are so many things that we attribute to the "sound" of a record / era. Tape is certainly one of them. Vinyl is another. The general equipment, mics, etc. used is a third. But the one thing that seems generally glossed over is the STYLE of production - bleed, musicians all cutting at the same time, musicianship, etc.. Also, not trying to make everything "perfect". (IMO, if you can pull back from the emotional component - that's why some of those recording sound like "demo's".) There is a LOT that goes into making a record sound like a particular era, and mixing alone or a particular piece of gear will not get you there. It's a production esthetic that spans the entire production - from first note written, to last song mastered. I think I have a bit of an easier time heading that direction because I lived and worked thru at least the end part of that era. I miss the days of all musicians coming together to track at the same time, in the same room. When we finished a track, it was 85-90% done. I feel blessed to have some of the wrecking crew guys (most notably don r) as some of my mentors. If you're looking for that sound, try to get there starting with the writing, and then with every production stage onward. There are some amazing recordings being made in 2017 that sound modern AND vintage. YES!!! That's what I've been trying to get at.
|
|
|
Post by m03 on May 7, 2017 17:11:18 GMT -6
Better, as referring to art, is all about the aesthetic experience. You can't qualify or quantify that with figures and measurements. You can only judge that by emotion and reaction. Emotion and reaction sells a lot of snake oil though. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to want to see empirical evidence validating claims that something is better or worse than another thing. I think that one format's ability to reproduce source material in a more true-to-the-source way than another format is something that certainly is quantifiable, even if our ears may prefer the sound of the less-true format. My posts aren't negative at all - I just don't happen to agree with your preconceptions that you've picked up on Gearslutz, YouTube and gear mags that are all not-too-subtly trying to sell you something. I think it's these types of "if you don't like it you must have learned everything you know from some crappy site I don't like rather than the legitimate way like I did" comments that come off as derogatory and rub people the wrong way (whether it's true or not). Regardless, I find plenty of value in your posts.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 7, 2017 17:42:59 GMT -6
Better, as referring to art, is all about the aesthetic experience. You can't qualify or quantify that with figures and measurements. You can only judge that by emotion and reaction. Emotion and reaction sells a lot of snake oil though. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to want to see empirical evidence validating claims that something is better or worse than another thing. I think that one format's ability to reproduce source material in a more true-to-the-source way than another format is something that certainly is quantifiable, even if our ears may prefer the sound of the less-true format. My posts aren't negative at all - I just don't happen to agree with your preconceptions that you've picked up on Gearslutz, YouTube and gear mags that are all not-too-subtly trying to sell you something. I think it's these types of "if you don't like it you must have learned everything you know from some crappy site I don't like rather than the legitimate way like I did" comments that come off as derogatory and rub people the wrong way (whether it's true or not). Regardless, I find plenty of value in your posts. Thanks! And well, yeah, you can measure a lot with machines. And people do want to see empirical evidence and do tend to believe that it validates claims that something is better or worse, etc. The problem is that that belief, although natural and logtical isn't always valid, especially when you're talking about things that evoke emotional reactions. People also tend to get sucked in to the idea that the machines tell all and are the final arbiters, which is not true. The machines don't tell you everything (otherwse they wouldn't keep improving them, right?), sometimes the things they tell you can be misleading or open to interpretation*, and much of the time the specs you get given by the company are actually worthless because either they've been subject to averaging and massage by the PR department or because if they gave the real, meaningful details most people wouldn't understand them. And sometimes the things that matter aren't easily measurable in a way that relates to the way people experience things. That's why I tend to take the word of people I trust on a personal level (like Bob O, Don R, and William Wittman) than anything published by the company or in the media. FWIW, very occasionally I might have developed a bit of an attitude toward somebody's point of view because of past history elsewhere. One generally hopes that when somebody moves up to a better quality site that it's an indication that the've progressed, but then when they demonstrate it's not so... I apologize to the others for that. * - Sometimes you even find that interpreting the specs in an orthodox manner will lead you to believe that something is "better" than something else when the exact opposite is true. Yes, I'm thinking about a traditional audio engineer trying to wrap his head around guitar amps, but there are plenty of similar situations. I remember when everyone thought that transformerless mic pres were better than transformer coupled pres - and a lot of great gear ended up in landfill that would fetch a pretty penny these days. One of the reasons I'm often skeptical about the new "best thing since sliced bread" products and even technologies. Not all new stuff is bad - far from it. But not all new stuff is good, either.
|
|