Soundelux or Neumann?
MattSnipe
three, Soundelux U195, Neumann TLM103, or U87. I know the u87 has
been used on tons of vocals through the years, but can these others
truly offer such a big pro sound in comparison?
Thanks
LJM
the time. All three mics are very good mics but the U195 is the best of
the three as far as vocals go IMHO. You don't say what kind of pre you
are using but if you are considering the above mics then you should have
some kind of mic pre. Good luck with your choice and as always let
"your" ears tell you which to buy and not me or anyone else in rap. :-)
Jim Maxon
Scott Dorsey
Yes, but it's not the same big pro sound.
Personally, I'd find the TLM103 more useful than the U87. Fletcher
things I am totally wrong about that. Get the mike that sounds good
to you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Ty Ford
We just replaced some lead vocal lines in a song. The original was cut with
a U 87. We used a U 89 in Hypercardioid through a GML 2020 with the LF
filter set at 40Hz. I could hear a very small difference in solo. In the
mix, you couldn't hear it.
Also consider the following
TLM 193, RE20, M149, SM7, U47, AT4050, AT4047..and others.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
transducr
i saw an ad in the new Sound On Sound for a new Neumann mic based on
the TLM103 and targeted to the same price bracket. they're calling it
the TLM127. the body looks U87-like, but from the picture looks a bit
smaller. same noise spec as the 103. there is a switch on the body to
change the polar pattern between cardioid and omni...there is also an
option on the switch labeled "R"...in the ad they mention that if you
buy the optional "power supply" you change the polar pattern remotely
(hence the "R") to 5 patterns (cardioid, hyper-cardioid, wide-angle
cardioid, omni and figure-eight).
if it were me, going by the mics in contention, i'd replace the U87
with this mic in the running. it's sure to be cheaper than an 87 and
still in the league of what you're looking for. personally, i'd opt
out of the optional "power supply" if i was on a limited budget (and i
am). seems like with the option between cardioid and omni you'd have a
handy little tool and if you wanted to later you could get the
"remote".
i've not used a U195, but i've heard quite a few ringing endorsements
here on R.A.P. based on it's versatility vs. price ratio.
i've used the 103 extensively in the past and i enjoyed it for vocals
quite a bit. to be clear, i was mainly recording male vocals with it
and going through a distressor 99% of the time with the little
upper-mid hump engaged in the side-chain fairly often. that being the
case, i didn't experience many of the sibiliance problems many do with
that mic. the distressor tended to smoov that out a bit.
i'd have to give the 103 a thumbs up overall. try and find one at the
old school prices...before neumann became affiliated with the nazi
party anew. :)
ESL555
guitars and bass drum ambience mic. The guy that mastered our album in LA has
done Aerosmith, Red Hot Chili Pepers and Chicago to name a few. He commented on
how good the vocals sounded on our albums and ask what mic we were using. So
the U195 passes the test when a top mastering engineer is digging the vocals.
By the way the preamp we used was a Phoenix DRS-2 which we also highly
recommend.
Dean Dydekl
U97, C12VR, 414, and a B.L.U.E Blueberry. The closest two sonically I
remember were between the U195 and U87. I posted the results here a
few years back and since then used U87's have become a real option as
they've come down in price..its really a hard choice they're both
great mics each with their own strenghts...3 patterns in the U87 and
the future option for further mods from people like Stephen Paul have
led to bend toward Neumann mics.
-Dean
Rob Adelman
can find some nice deals on vintage ones.
-Rob
david
<thisadress...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've owned a pair of 87's for decades, and a pair of U195's for a few
years now. If I had a small studio and had to buy just one of either of
these, I'd buy the U195.
One other thing about the U195 is that some of them sound even better
than most of the others. If you can, try out a few of them and pick out
the one you like best.
David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island
Garthrr
thisadress...@hotmail.com (MattSnipe) writes:
I have the U195 and the TLM 103 but not the U87. The 103 can be good on some
voices but the U195 works nearly all the time. It is a very useful mic. If I
could only have one microphone (of the mics I own) I think I'd choose the U195.
Garth~
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
tony espinoza
if i had to choose between those, i'd go for a U87. with the nice
pre's they are total work horses. the TLM103 is a kinda weird
sounding mic IMHO and while it's cool, i don't think it would be my
first hifi vocal mic. the U195 is useful on guitars, bass and even
drums (kick) but i have had better luck cutting vocals with the 87.
frankly, i would also consider tube microphones as well since i think
they make for a richer sounding vocal most of the time. my favorite
is a U67 with the right tube (preferrably EF806) and a great PSU (not
the original one). but after that, i'd look at the other soundelux
mics. the U95S is killer, especially for male vocals, and the Elux
251 is great all around. you may be able to find a used U95S for just
a little more than a new U87Ai.
-tE
SAN FRANCISCO SOUNDWORKS
to...@sfsoundworks.com
415-503-1110 vox
www.sfsoundworks.com
tomhartman
best sounding mikes I've heard, period. For female vocals especially,
it is just wonderful.
Unlike many others up here, I am a U87 fan, but I had the choice, and
went with this. Have not been disappointed.
Fletcher
>
> Personally, I'd find the TLM103 more useful than the U87. Fletcher
> things I am totally wrong about that. Get the mike that sounds good
> to you.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
No I don't...
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"
Mike Rivers
> if i had to choose between those, i'd go for a U87. with the nice
> pre's they are total work horses.
Not only that, but people with the money know what a U87 is. Back
before the microphone revolution, the fact that I had U87s (and
everyone else in my price range was using PA mics and maybe an SM81)
got me gigs. Today that might not be the case, however.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Steve Holt
"Ty Ford" <tf...@jagunet.com> wrote in message
news:tford.14...@news.jagunet.com...
> In Article <c9dbfdc6.03070...@posting.google.com>,
> thisadress...@hotmail.com (MattSnipe) wrote:
> >Ready to get my first nice main vocal mic. I am looking at these
> >three, Soundelux U195, Neumann TLM103, or U87. I know the u87 has
> >been used on tons of vocals through the years, but can these others
> >truly offer such a big pro sound in comparison?
> >
> >Thanks
>
> We just replaced some lead vocal lines in a song. The original was cut
with
> a U 87. We used a U 89 in Hypercardioid through a GML 2020 with the LF
> filter set at 40Hz. I could hear a very small difference in solo. In the
> mix, you couldn't hear it.
>
Did you prefer the U89?
--
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt
Steve Holt
"tony espinoza" <tonyes...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f7783826.0307...@posting.google.com...
I was underwhelmed with the U95S, especially given the price.
Bob Smith
> > if i had to choose between those, i'd go for a U87. with the nice
> > pre's they are total work horses. the TLM103 is a kinda weird
> > sounding mic IMHO and while it's cool, i don't think it would be my
> > first hifi vocal mic. the U195 is useful on guitars, bass and even
> > drums (kick) but i have had better luck cutting vocals with the 87.
> > frankly, i would also consider tube microphones as well since i think
> > they make for a richer sounding vocal most of the time. my favorite
> > is a U67 with the right tube (preferrably EF806) and a great PSU (not
> > the original one). but after that, i'd look at the other soundelux
> > mics. the U95S is killer, especially for male vocals, and the Elux
> > 251 is great all around. you may be able to find a used U95S for just
> > a little more than a new U87Ai.
> >
>
> I was underwhelmed with the U95S, especially given the price.
Was it possible the U95S you used had a problem? I have to agree with
Tony's assessments. The U95S through a Great River MP2-MH has become one
of my top choices for male vocals. The TLM103 is rarely picked for vocal
use while a U195, SM7 or SM57 sometimes gets the nod.
--
bobs
we organize chaos
Bob Smith - BS Studios
http://www.bsstudios.com/
rsm...@bsstudios.com
Steve Holt
news:bh0muu$4m8$0...@216.39.135.228...
Hey Bob. Funny you should say that you liked it thru the Great River. I
ended up selling my Great River as it didn't measure up to my other pres.
As for the U95S, it was a new one I had on spec, shipped directly from the
dealer, and it cost me a ton of money in shipping both ways for me to find
out I didn't like it. I had it for several days, and did several shootouts.
I mean, it was a nice mic, but nothing special. And the big price tag made
it much less attractive. We tried it thru a Neve 1089, and API 312, a Manley
DVC, and a few other pres.
But you know... YMMV right?
Wayne
>ended up selling my Great River as it didn't measure up to my other pres.
>As for the U95S, it was a new one I had on spec, shipped directly from the
>dealer, and it cost me a ton of money in shipping both ways for me to find
>out I didn't like it. I had it for several days, and did several shootouts.
>I mean, it was a nice mic, but nothing special. And the big price tag made
>it much less attractive. We tried it thru a Neve 1089, and API 312, a Manley
>DVC, and a few other pres.
>But you know... YMMV right?
>--
>
>Steve Holt
>INNER MUSIC
>Music Creation & Production
>http://www.inner-music.com
>http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt
>
>
check-up and run it through a Great River MP2-MH and MP2-NV and even a VMP-2.
Of course the MH is really neutral sounding and doesn't change much in how it
sounds, but the NV and the AMR VMP-2 tube pre have quite a bit of color.
The short version is I wound up trading the U95S and two XT20's for an Alesis
HD24 and Cranesong Trakker and kept the Great Rivers. Sometimes, I change the
mics for color and sometimes the pres, occasionaly I'll change both.
If it still doesn't work after that, I change the singer or the song. <gr>
Wayne
Nathan Eldred
> I was underwhelmed with the U95S, especially given the price.
Soundelux is constantly growing and evolving. Replacement of the U95s
with the E47 is obvious evidence of that. Imagine your (I use 'your'
generically) experience as an engineer 7 years ago versus today. So
the story goes with gear design. Take a look at Soundelux's early
history, and mic selection, and it's a complete transformation.
In reference to the original posters question, Soundelux is much
closer to the 'magic' of the original vintage (Neumann and AKG)
designs than the "new" Neumann company's designs are. Not to say that
new Neumann mics are bad, but often they don't contain that certain
something that we are all used to hearing with many of the favorite
pieces. I don't think Soundelux are meant to always be an exact
reproduction. David Bock has used his many years of personal
recording experience, and the valued opinion of other engineers, to
create something that is often a more refined interpretation tonally
than many of the original designs. Of course this is subjective, but
public perception is often (but not always) a good indication on the
matter.
Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com
Bob Smith
> > Was it possible the U95S you used had a problem? I have to agree with
> > Tony's assessments. The U95S through a Great River MP2-MH has become one
> > of my top choices for male vocals. The TLM103 is rarely picked for vocal
> > use while a U195, SM7 or SM57 sometimes gets the nod.
>
> Hey Bob. Funny you should say that you liked it thru the Great River. I
> ended up selling my Great River as it didn't measure up to my other pres.
> As for the U95S, it was a new one I had on spec, shipped directly from the
> dealer, and it cost me a ton of money in shipping both ways for me to find
> out I didn't like it. I had it for several days, and did several shootouts.
> I mean, it was a nice mic, but nothing special. And the big price tag made
> it much less attractive. We tried it thru a Neve 1089, and API 312, a Manley
> DVC, and a few other pres.
> But you know... YMMV right?
YMMV is true enough. There is no ONE mic or mic pre to suit all
situations. I often like an Elux251 or Schoeps through a Martech for
acoustic guitars but they don't float my boat for the male vocalists
that come through my studio.
bobs
Steve Holt
"Wayne" <ybst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030808193856...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> >Hey Bob. Funny you should say that you liked it thru the Great River. I
> >ended up selling my Great River as it didn't measure up to my other pres.
> >As for the U95S, it was a new one I had on spec, shipped directly from
the
> >dealer, and it cost me a ton of money in shipping both ways for me to
find
> >out I didn't like it. I had it for several days, and did several
shootouts.
> >I mean, it was a nice mic, but nothing special. And the big price tag
made
> >it much less attractive. We tried it thru a Neve 1089, and API 312, a
Manley
> >DVC, and a few other pres.
> >But you know... YMMV right?
> >--
> >
> >Steve Holt
>> >
for a
> check-up and run it through a Great River MP2-MH and MP2-NV and even a
VMP-2.
> Of course the MH is really neutral sounding and doesn't change much in how
it
> sounds, but the NV and the AMR VMP-2 tube pre have quite a bit of color.
>
> The short version is I wound up trading the U95S and two XT20's for an
Alesis
> HD24 and Cranesong Trakker and kept the Great Rivers. Sometimes, I change
the
> mics for color and sometimes the pres, occasionaly I'll change both.
>
> If it still doesn't work after that, I change the singer or the song.
<gr>
>
> Wayne
Changing the singer.
Now THERE'S a part of the signal path I hadn't considered...
EggHd
situations. >>
It makes you wonder how all the classic albums we hear recorded and mixed on
the same console sound so good. This only addresses the mic pre issue.
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
Bob Smith
EggHd wrote:
>
> > Bob Smith wrote:
> << There is no ONE mic or mic pre to suit all
> situations. >>
>
> It makes you wonder how all the classic albums we hear recorded and mixed on
> the same console sound so good. This only addresses the mic pre issue.
I dunno about others, but when I've gone back to listen to many of what
I consider classic albums I enjoy the music for what it is unless I put
on the engineer's hat. Then I can hear out of tune vocals here, edits
there, low mid mush on this song, upper mid fuzziness on that one, harsh
cymbals, reverbs that don't seem right to me, etc. etc. If I want to be
entertained I try hard to shut down the engineer mode and play the music
on speakers that are more hi-fi oriented. That helps to mask a lot for
me. Note that the foregoing is all my opinion, not some absolute truth
or fact. Just what I hear. YMMV.
Bob Smith
Steve Holt wrote:
>
> "Wayne" <ybst...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > I was unimpressed with my U95S after using it. Sent it back to Soundelux for a
> > check-up and run it through a Great River MP2-MH and MP2-NV and even a VMP-2.
> > Of course the MH is really neutral sounding and doesn't change much in how it
> > sounds, but the NV and the AMR VMP-2 tube pre have quite a bit of color.
> >
> > The short version is I wound up trading the U95S and two XT20's for an Alesis
> > HD24 and Cranesong Trakker and kept the Great Rivers. Sometimes, I change the
> > mics for color and sometimes the pres, occasionaly I'll change both.
> >
> > If it still doesn't work after that, I change the singer or the song. <gr>
> Changing the singer.
> Now THERE'S a part of the signal path I hadn't considered...
I had a fellow that wanted to do a falsetto voice for the bgv on a
particular song. The song really wanted a female bgv. Brought in a
female vocalist for the song and recorded it both ways. The real female
bgv version made the album.
Patric D'Eimon
make the assumption that there is only ONE correct sound. Mostly any mic or
micpre can catch any sound.
To get away from such generalities I'd say that any mic or any pre can work on
anything as long as it is the sound you are after. Or even if it is not the
sound you are after. All we're doing is capturing sound. There is no right or
wrong sound. No right or wrong capture. However you get what you get is exactly
the right way to get what you got! There is just sound.
I'm certain that no one can tell me without previous knowledge what the signal
chain is on ANY recording. They may say they like it or don't like it but that
doesn't mean they know what is the right sound or signal chain to use for a given
sound. It is just how they would do it. As we know from this newsgroup, the
pico second someone claims to know what the right
sound/thing/technique/pre/mike/whatever, someone will post that it is crap. Who
gets to be right?
Sound, it seems, has always been and hopefully always will be a moving target.
Any number of people on this list post about how bad the snare sound was in the
80's. Pick most any sound in any era and any number of guys and gals will think
it is crap based on what they like (or what is hip) now. Transformers were "out"
in the 80's and 90's. Now they are bach. Punk, R/B, pop, country, polka, and on
and on all have different sounds so who gets to know what the "correct" sound is.
Well, that's my rant. It usually takes typing a few paragraphs (snorting in
disgust as punctuation to my thoughts) to remember that this group is just the
place to throw opinions around and certainly no one is obliged to take them.
All done now....Patric
Mike Rivers
> It makes you wonder how all the classic albums we hear recorded and mixed on
> the same console sound so good. This only addresses the mic pre issue.
Yeah, and all they had for mics in those days were those old U47s and
77DXs. Not even a Rode. Not even an SM57.
Mike Rivers
> I dunno about others, but when I've gone back to listen to many of what
> I consider classic albums I enjoy the music for what it is unless I put
> on the engineer's hat. Then I can hear out of tune vocals here, edits
> there, low mid mush on this song, upper mid fuzziness on that one, harsh
> cymbals, reverbs that don't seem right to me, etc. etc.
Funny, but I can hear emotion in the vocals, warmth, snare drums that
aren't too loud, and overall reverb that makes everything sound like
it was all recorded in the same space.
I listen to a modern record and I hear a perfect vocal with little
feeling, a drum-driven mix with instruments popping up out of nowhere
to do their little bits, but amazing clarity on everything. I'd rather
just put on some music to enjoy, which I can actually do with some
modern recordings, but it helps to be in the next room.
Bob Smith
>
> In article <3F352D86...@bsstudios.com> rsm...@bsstudios.com writes:
>
> > I dunno about others, but when I've gone back to listen to many of what
> > I consider classic albums I enjoy the music for what it is unless I put
> > on the engineer's hat. Then I can hear out of tune vocals here, edits
> > there, low mid mush on this song, upper mid fuzziness on that one, harsh
> > cymbals, reverbs that don't seem right to me, etc. etc.
>
> Funny, but I can hear emotion in the vocals, warmth, snare drums that
> aren't too loud, and overall reverb that makes everything sound like
> it was all recorded in the same space.
That's what I was trying to say about the music for what it is. Warts
and all, there were some really good collections of music recorded. The
technical aspects of the recordings may or may not share the same level
of excellence. Some albums had a good sense of space and dynamics.
Others were definitely challenged in the mix. Given some of the 'pop'
albums today, I'd rather have the warts (if any) of older albums (even
back to the '40s and '50s) than some of the hypercompressed
overdistorted stuff my kids like today. Then again, that's my personal
preference and opinion.
--
Jim Kollens
to many of what
> I consider classic albums I enjoy the music for what it is unless I put
> on the engineer's hat. Then I can hear out of tune vocals here, edits
> there, low mid mush on this song, upper mid fuzziness on that one, harsh
> cymbals, reverbs that don't seem
>right to me, etc. etc.
I guess it depends if you're talking about "Louie, Louie" or Ella Fitzgerald.
One of my fav jokes is to play 50's era jazz cuts for youthful musicians who
think you are playing a new album. Or when I played Stan Getz's "3 x 3 x 2 x 2
x 2 = 72" for a youngblood. When he heard the band stops in the middle of the
song where the music roars back, he commented "Listen to that fake reverb." I
guess it just depends on what Classic album you're refering to.
Garthrr
<st...@inner-musicNOSPAM.com> writes:
>
>Changing the singer.
>Now THERE'S a part of the signal path I hadn't considered...
Boy, I've considered it from time to time... <g>
Fletcher
> << There is no ONE mic or mic pre to suit all
> situations. >>
>
> It makes you wonder how all the classic albums we hear recorded and mixed on
> the same console sound so good. This only addresses the mic pre issue.
>
Uhhh, no... it addresses the entire production issue. The "classic albums we
hear recorded and mixed on the same console" were arranged a bit differently
than albums are arranged today... they were recorded in rooms that were far and
away better than 99.9987% of the recording rooms that exist today... with far
better microphone collections than generally exist today.
Consoles of that period also had far better sonic qualities than the consoles of
today... so your mic pre point is pretty fuckin moot when you really add up all
the differences between the "classic albums that were recorded and mixed on the
same console" and the Pro-sTools/Auto-Tuned-Lord-Alge/SSL-Marcussen Mastering
type "loudness above audio" stylings we are subjected to today... perhaps having
a choice of pre's is one of the few ways we can actually try to subtly
differentiate our product as the 'record selling machinery' seems to be hell
bent on everything sounding "the same"
EggHd
hear recorded and mixed on the same console" were arranged a bit differently
than albums are arranged today... they were recorded in rooms that were far and
away better than 99.9987% of the recording rooms that exist today... >>
So you are addressing more project studios? Many albums today are still cut in
the A level rooms.
<< Consoles of that period also had far better sonic qualities than the
consoles of
today... >>
Many people still use the consoles of the period.
<< so your mic pre point is pretty fuckin moot when you really add up all
the differences between the "classic albums that were recorded and mixed on the
same console" and the Pro-sTools/Auto-Tuned-Lord-Alge/SSL-Marcussen Mastering
type "loudness above audio" stylings we are subjected to today... >>
Fuck your attitude. My point was said with respect.
<< perhaps having
a choice of pre's is one of the few ways we can actually try to subtly
differentiate our product as the 'record selling machinery' seems to be hell
bent on everything sounding "the same" >>
I don't disagree.
Bob Smith
Yes, it really does depend. I guess I wasn't very clear. There are many
classics that sound great, but one can also find classics that have
great music with less than stellar audio on the recordings. I still
listen to them because I like the music. Some of my favorites were
recorded live such as the Montreaux Jazz Festivals. Impressive music and
some with compromised audio. As an aside, my hat is off to those
engineers who have participated in creating such live recordings.
Fletcher
> << The "classic albums we
> hear recorded and mixed on the same console" were arranged a bit differently
> than albums are arranged today... they were recorded in rooms that were far and
> away better than 99.9987% of the recording rooms that exist today... >>
>
> So you are addressing more project studios? Many albums today are still cut in
> the A level rooms.
Sadly... most of the really "A level rooms" no longer exist and the "A level rooms"
that have replaced them aren't nearly as good. There are also the 'production
issues'... by that I mean arrangements [which are way, way, way denser than they
were 30 years ago] and storage medium issues.
>
>
> << Consoles of that period also had far better sonic qualities than the
> consoles of
> today... >>
>
> Many people still use the consoles of the period.
Granted... but there are maintenance issues with a whole lot of them, and there
are differences in storage mediums, and there are definitely differences in
engineering and production techniques that eclipse the tone of the desk... but yes,
there are a whole lot of the old desks kicking around.
>
>
> << so your mic pre point is pretty fuckin moot when you really add up all
> the differences between the "classic albums that were recorded and mixed on the
> same console" and the Pro-sTools/Auto-Tuned-Lord-Alge/SSL-Marcussen Mastering
> type "loudness above audio" stylings we are subjected to today... >>
>
> Fuck your attitude. My point was said with respect.
My point was made from the sheep like manner in which albums have been masticated
to the point of rampant "sameness"... if that's a lack of "respect"... so fucking
be it.
R Krizman
> << There is no ONE mic or mic pre to suit all
> situations. >>
>
> It makes you wonder how all the classic albums we hear recorded and mixed on
> the same console sound so good. >>
In restrospect, a lot of them really don't. Nor does it matter. Not to look a
sacred cow in the mouth, but I'm sure teeny boppers today are getting just as
much legitimate hormonal thrill out of the latest hypercompressed "No Doubt" or
Jewel tune that we got out of Phil Spector's "Wall of Mush".
Hell, in some ways my standard of recording excellence still hinges around the
sound of Motown coming out of a tiny transistor radio.
-R
EggHd
rooms"
that have replaced them aren't nearly as good. >>
And more true outside the big cities that some of us live in.
<< if that's a lack of "respect"... so fucking
be it. >>
I may have mistakenly read the comment at me not the sate of the biz.
My comment was based on some posters on RAP who, on one hand talk about the
great sound of the old records and on the other talk about the differences in
mic pres on a given source.
This isn't that I don't see why all of the companies making mic pres and
channel strips have been able to move units. There are many more high end
project studios than there used to be. More people understand that to get the
balls of what they want to hear, you may not be able to get that with your low
end console.
On the other hand, if I go to Cello and track on their nice old Neve, I won't
be reaching for outboard pres. But that's me.
EggHd
the
sound of Motown coming out of a tiny transistor radio. >>
Isn't this my point?
xy
Man", but that's kind of a taboo term around here based on a WebTV
escapade circa 1999.
maybe he could email you some rough tracks to get an idea of the
sounds.
R Krizman
around
the
sound of Motown coming out of a tiny transistor radio. >>
Isn't this my point?
>><BR><BR>
Zackley.
-R
Kris Singh
mixed on the
> same console" and the Pro-sTools/Auto-Tuned-Lord-Alge/SSL-Marcussen Mastering
> type "loudness above audio" stylings we are subjected to today"
Fletcher,
Tom Lord-Alge is more a victim of excessive compression then "Loudness
above audio." He does not make records too loud, that falls usually
in the hands of the mastering engineer. I am not the biggest fan of
Lord-Alge's work, but he is great at putting a vocal in your face. It
helps boost the impact of the emotion when the vocal is well
preformed. When you have a great singer(attitude-wise), like a Mick
Jagger, it is even better to put the vocal on the listeners lap. That
is the kind of thing he does.
You have d*&kheads on this group that complain, "OHH I saw Cris
Cornell live and he was flat most of the time...." That is why we
have auto-tune and we are forced to use it. Because of the same
engine you oil. So don't blast what you help make a standard. People
on this group(not all) have criticized pitch so much, they forgot
about emotion. That is why a great performance is forced to be on the
center of the note now to be passable. That is B.S. That is the
newsgroup/world we live in.
Records today don't sound terrible across the board, and I
would like you to acknowledge that. I can record something to pro
tools HD in my home studio and I'd bet my last dollar that you would
not know that it wasn't done on tape the old fashion way. I can even
simulate the hiss for you if you like that sort of thing.
The difference between "classic albums" is more in the artists and the
moment then the stupid equipment. The way records sound is like
fashion, they go through changes. When something works for the time,
it works. When people get into something new, the engineers will
follow. Thus, when a true artist comes in and only worries about
performing, they are not as good for having a loud possibly
over-compressed record??? give me a break dude.
Ohh, and the whole statement you made that I am responding to....
it is a load of crap. The great "classic records" you are loosely
referring to were not at all great due to the gear. The Beatles could
have done Abbey Road on a mackie, and you know what, it would still be
amazing. Marvin Gaye could sing "What's Going On?" through a sm57
into a mackie with spider webs and it would still be great. Same with
many of today's singers. Records are deeper then which buttons they
turned.-Kris Singh
In resonse to the original post.......
I would check out the Neumann m147, if vocals is you primary use. If
budgets allows, check the M149. Great mics!! Good luck!!!
Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote in message news:<3F362A67...@mercenary.com>...
Fill X
>Lord-Alge's work, but he is great at putting a vocal in your face. It
>helps boost the impact of the emotion when the vocal is well
>preformed. When you have a great singer(attitude-wise), like a Mick
>Jagger, it is even better to put the vocal on the listeners lap. That
>is the kind of thing he does.
mixed the opposite of "in your lap".
> People
>on this group(not all) have criticized pitch so much, they forgot
>about emotion. That is why a great performance is forced to be on the
>center of the note now to be passable. That is B.S. That is the
>newsgroup/world we live in.
I'm not sure engineers are solely to blame for auto-tune. A&R guys, radio
people, producers and these days THE BAND THEMSELVES are often to blame as
well.
In regards to the issue of "The band could of made the record on a mackie" and
that sort of thing, Yes, it;s the music not the gear and it's the engineer not
the gear. But if you think "Clap hands here comes charlie" would *sound* the
same over- compressed to hell, of course it wouldn't. All this sonic mess has
an effect on the listeners. No dynamics tire people out. Cut up performances
lack soul. A lot of bands these days are demanding all these things that are
being criticized, so the blame goes all around.
There will always be good music, but the questions raised about whether
anyone's helping it get it to the people in a way that represents the band are
worth asking. I know some people that are doing the right thing too.
P h i l i p
______________________________
"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
- Dorothy Parker
Fletcher
> "...the differences between the "classic albums that were recorded and
> mixed on the
> > same console" and the Pro-sTools/Auto-Tuned-Lord-Alge/SSL-Marcussen Mastering
> > type "loudness above audio" stylings we are subjected to today"
>
>
> Tom Lord-Alge is more a victim of excessive compression then "Loudness
> above audio."
Didn't say he was... I indicted Marcussen and the followers of the Marcussen "shotgun in the
face loudness factor" for 'loudness above audio'... TLA has made himself millions from other
shitty practices... so I guess they're good practices and I'm the one who is wrong... or I'd
have a Ferrari and a yacht and he'd have a '95 Cherokee 'Sport' w/128k miles...
> He does not make records too loud, that falls usually
> in the hands of the mastering engineer. I am not the biggest fan of
> Lord-Alge's work, but he is great at putting a vocal in your face. It
> helps boost the impact of the emotion when the vocal is well
> preformed.
He, and his brother(s) and his wannabe followers are also the absolute masters of the "small
sounding grainy mix" that has become oh so fucking prevalent on modern radio. I was associated
with a record where TLA/CLA mixed some of the same songs Jack Joseph Puig mixed... the
differences were more than palpable. I was recently associated with a record that was mastered
by Howie Weinburg, Steve Marcussen, Dave Collins and Bob Ludwig... all had interesting ideas...
and while a couple of them came pretty close, none of them really nailed it... each had a wart,
one had the least obtrusive wart and that's who's work will be on the release.
> When you have a great singer(attitude-wise), like a Mick
> Jagger, it is even better to put the vocal on the listeners lap. That
> is the kind of thing he does.
If you say so... my mileage has varied... I have just found a lack of depth and intimacy to
TLA's work [like he could give a fuck what some asshole pimp thinks]... could be the
music/recording before it gets to him, could be the factory methods employed, could be I'm just
fucking old and am whining about the "new shit" as my father whined about the Allman Brothers
and The Stones... who knows.
>
> You have d*&kheads on this group that complain, "OHH I saw Cris
> Cornell live and he was flat most of the time...." That is why we
> have auto-tune and we are forced to use it.
No, that may be why you employ it... but I think Jim Morrison proved you can sing out of tune
and still sell records. The people who might notice that _____ sang flat, sharp (whatever) in
a live setting are pretty few and far between... in fact, some of us who would notice find a
certain charm and "humanness" [is that a word?] when vocals are a tad off both on record and in
live performance. Then again... someone like Avril Levigne (sp?) has no business making
records in the first fucking place... but the technology employed made her a fucking star,
didn't it. It could just be a 'varying mileage' thing again... I'm old, I like a little soul
in my music... I also like Tabasco in my Margaritas... so what the fuck do I know.
> So don't blast what you help make a standard. People
> on this group(not all) have criticized pitch so much, they forgot
> about emotion. That is why a great performance is forced to be on the
> center of the note now to be passable. That is B.S. That is the
> newsgroup/world we live in.
What *I* helped make a standard? Hello? McFly?... if it were up to me most of the records
would sound like a cross between 'Exile On Main St.' and 'London Calling'... raw fucking
emotion, that smells like Bourbon and vomit...
Autotune when applied by a skilled operator in small quantities can indeed help a track.
Morphine applied in small quantities can be a very effective 'pain management' tool. Autotune,
like Morphine, has a large propensity for abuse... and just as a novice junkie is far more
likely to 'turn blue' than a veteran junkie... too many of the Pro-sTool wielding motherfuckers
that plague our cities seem to have a propensity to use the power afforded them by the tools to
the point of abuse... much for the same reason a dog licks his balls... because they can
[actually a dog licks his balls because he can't make a fist... but that's a debate for another
day].
>
>
> Records today don't sound terrible across the board, and I
> would like you to acknowledge that.
Acknowledged. However, many records that shouldn't sound like shit, do sound like shit... I
would like you to acknowledge that.
> I can record something to pro
> tools HD in my home studio and I'd bet my last dollar that you would
> not know that it wasn't done on tape the old fashion way. I can even
> simulate the hiss for you if you like that sort of thing.
I'd bet you my last dollar that I don't give a shit if sounds like it was done on tape or not
[I'm a RADAR-24 user... haven't touched "tape" in close to 2 years]... I only care if the audio
supports the music presentation, or at least gets out of the fucking way of the music
presentation. Too many recordings that enter my world sound like "the process" interfered with
the presentation... with this, I have a problem. What tools were employed? Who gives a fuck.
To paraphrase a wonderful old quote... I ain't never seen no motherfucker walking down the
street humming the 'workstation' [substitute console, microphone, mic pre, compressor, etc. to
suit your application].
I cringe every time I hear the phrase "well we had ___ editing it in the other room while we
were still tracking". Why? Yeah, I've been associated with records that were done on analog
where there were hundreds of edits to produce a drum track... and I felt it was a fucking
dumbass thing to do then too [I had no problems depositing the checks... just thought the work
was fucking stupid and superfluous]. How about getting the lawyers to send a good old "non
disclosure agreement" to a gunslinger drummer's office and just hiring that 'gunslinger
drummer' to play on the fucking record? It, like 'soul removal editing' is done on a regular
basis... however 101 times out of a 100 chances hiring in an amazing drummer sounds and feels
better than 'edited to death'... and to top it off... it makes for far less work, and a better
overall product.
Yeah, I know it's 2/3rds a mortal sin to suggest that records be made in less time for less
money... especially when assholes like me work for a "day rate"... let's face it, it's in our
best interest to spend many more days working on a product... even if we're sacrificing
"greatness" for "perfection" in the process. The lovely new position of 'Pro-sTools operator'
has to look like they're worth the money... so they have to "do" things... there are enough
"producers" who have no fucking business being anywhere near the recording process that they
depend on the "Pro-sTools operators" to make things "perfect" so they look like they're doing
their job. It's a viscous fucking circle... and the people that suffer most are usually the
artist and the audience while the incompetent producer covers his incompetent ass and the
'Pro-sTools operator' works on moving from Glendale to Silverlake.
>
>
> The difference between "classic albums" is more in the artists and the
> moment then the stupid equipment.
Absolutely.
> The way records sound is like
> fashion, they go through changes. When something works for the time,
> it works. When people get into something new, the engineers will
> follow.
Right... the 80's were a great example... and so is the modern Pro-sTools abuse era... tools
abused to create current fashion also put a time and date stamp on the music. Truly excellent
recordings [where the technology doesn't impede the performance] are timeless. N.W.A.'s
"Straight Outta Compton" sounds as fresh today as it did in 1987... "Appetite For Destruction"
sounds as 'in your face' today as it did in 1988... "Nevermind" is still compelling 12 years
later...
'Addicted to Love' sounds like the poster child for why the 80's sucked [along with the entire
Howard Jones catalog]... The Stones "2000 Light Years From Home" blows... but "On Down The
Line" is as cool as the day it was released... why? The 'time and date stamp' of the "fashion
period" in terms of the "production techniques" is why... the 'music' seems a secondary
consideration to the implementation of the current fashion edict. "On Down The Line" seems to
have transcended the current fashion of the day, whether that was a conscious decision or an
accident will never be known [Jimmy's dead and I didn't think to ask him before he up and
died... my bad]... the bottom line is that "On Down The Line" is as compelling today as it was
in 1972.
> Thus, when a true artist comes in and only worries about
> performing, they are not as good for having a loud possibly
> over-compressed record??? give me a break dude.
Be happy to give you a break if I understood what the fuck you were talking about.
When a "true artist" has a production team around them that can actually hear the music above
the current 'fashion requirements', and that production team has the fucking balls to make a
record that "presents the artist's material" in the most musical manner for that particular
artist... then who gives a shit what they did, or how they did it.
The audio either enhances or gets out of the way of the performances... it doesn't interfere
[if the production team does their job correctly the audio doesn't interfere with the musical
presentation... more often than not the "production team" seems to want their 'stamp', or to
keep current with modern fashion and the audio interferes with the presentation... bad
production team... bad, bad, bad, bad, bad].
>
>
> Ohh, and the whole statement you made that I am responding to....
> it is a load of crap. The great "classic records" you are loosely
> referring to were not at all great due to the gear. The Beatles could
> have done Abbey Road on a mackie, and you know what, it would still be
> amazing.
No argument.
> Marvin Gaye could sing "What's Going On?" through a sm57
> into a mackie with spider webs and it would still be great.
No argument. For that matter Aretha could sing into an MXL mic through a DMP3 pre into a set
of ShitiDesign 888's and even if some asshole motherfucker pulled out the 'global autotune' it
would still get your johnson harder than Chinese Algebra... but might it not be better if they
left the 'soul' intact?
> Same with
> many of today's singers. Records are deeper then which buttons they
> turned.-
>
Absolute agreement... with a caveat. Records *should* be deeper than the tools employed. I
think we're basically saying the same things here... I just get dismayed with the tools are
used for evil instead of good... especially when they're used for evil by an operator that is
trying to be 'fashionable'... or worse, is just plain old fucking incompetent... now, you can't
argue with me that there are way too many incompetent motherfuckers making records today... if
you can argue that, well then I'd be really impressed.
Kris Singh
vocals are
> mixed the opposite of "in your lap".
Llisten to "No Expectations" which is the 2nd cut on Beggars Banquet.
Tell me he is not sitting on your lap. That was 1968. Get back to me
after you hear that.
Albiet, If you put on a lot of Stones record from the 1960s-1970s his
vocal is not always "in your lap," but compared to other records of
that time, he is often more so then what was out at the time. This
also proves the point, that a great vocal can be any type of
recording. Now let's get into a more modern stones record, "Voodoo
Lounge" Jagger is in your face. Don Was produced it. Did a great
job. Vocal sounds great. Don Was told me face to face, that Mick
used a handheld SM58 on the vocal. Proving again, it does not matter
that much which mic you use. As the years have gone on, Jagger has
continuly got more and more in your face on the records. It is the
sound. So, I have established that he was doing it in 1968, and he
does it today. What are you saying??? DO YOUR HOMEWORK DUDE.
>
"I'm not sure engineers are solely to blame for auto-tune. A&R guys,
radio
> people, producers and these days THE BAND THEMSELVES are often to blame as
> well."
True to a degree. Radio people only care about what the popular
opinion of the listener is. They don't form opinons. They are not
relevent. Producers, engineers, and A&R guys are often one in the
same through the process of recording. That is where I agree. They
are fueled by people like I have mentioned who have come to expect
Auto-Tune. As far as THE BAND THEMSELVES, I have never heard a rock
band say, "Ohh, let's slam that with Auto-Tune. It will work then."
Not in my experiences. I am not disputing that they exist. I just
don't think that is a fair generalization.
> "In regards to the issue of "The band could of made the record on a mackie" and
> that sort of thing, Yes, it;s the music not the gear and it's the engineer not
> the gear. But if you think "Clap hands here comes charlie" would *sound* the
> same over- compressed to hell, of course it wouldn't. All this sonic mess has
> an effect on the listeners. No dynamics tire people out. Cut up performances
> lack soul. A lot of bands these days are demanding all these things that are
> being criticized, so the blame goes all around."
Dude, I won't get in this debate. A great song is a great song. A
Great Performance is a great performance. Yea, if you compress it
more it will sound different. If you do anything to any audio you
will change the way it sounds. No Dynamic is the responsibility of
the artist and the producer. The new Jane's Addiction record is
heavily compressed, but it still has a great dynamic. It is called,
talent. You can't hide it or destroy it with knobs.
"There will always be good music, but the questions raised about
whether
> anyone's helping it get it to the people in a way that represents the band are
> worth asking. I know some people that are doing the right thing too."
Cool.
Anything else?
>
> - Dorothy Parker
Fill X
>Tell me he is not sitting on your lap. That was 1968. Get back to me
>after you hear that.
>
uh, yes, obviously not being born yesterday I know that cut. It as well as many
other stones vocals have the voice loud in the mix. However, by standard of the
day the vocals are not particulrly loud on Stones records. Many of the rock
things the stones did work all the better because the vocal sits in the mix
back like one of the other instruments. You hear this on some Zep cuts as well
as early AC/DC records. You'd probably never be allowed today to let a vocal
get back in there for effect. Instead, someone would complain that it wasn't
loud enough.
That's the essence of my gripe about modern mixing. Many beatles and stones
records, just to site popular bands as examples, have tracks where the drums
are very low and it's an artistic decision. No drummer or A&R person was
running into the booth complaining about the snare sound most likely. I feel
too much emphasis is placed on the sound of the individual instrument in a mix
these days rather than using each thing musically as part of an artistic
approach to a whole song.
As for my stones homework, I'll gladly listen to anything up through "Some
Girls" but I refuse to take instruction from anyone who thinks "Voodoo Lounge"
was a well produced record.
> The new Jane's Addiction record is
>heavily compressed, but it still has a great dynamic.
Dynamic or dynamics?
It is called,
>talent. You can't hide it or destroy it with knobs.
I wish they had tried harder.
ScotFraser
> Lord-Alge's work, but he is great at putting a vocal in your face. It
> helps boost the impact of the emotion when the vocal is well
> preformed.>>
Yes, however, it completely drains the emotion when there's no dynamic
contrast. When the meters go straight to zero on the downbeat & never move, I'd
say the mixer has pretty well emasculated whatever performance may have
originally ocurred.
Scott Fraser
Rob Adelman
Kris Singh wrote:
> Mick jagger is a funny person to mention since, a lot of his great
> vocals are
>
>>mixed the opposite of "in your lap".
>
>
> Llisten to "No Expectations" which is the 2nd cut on Beggars Banquet.
> Tell me he is not sitting on your lap. That was 1968. Get back to me
> after you hear that.
As always, y.m.m.v.
Check out this silly poll:
NEWS - Doors, Jagger, Bowie Make Magazine's 50 Worst In Music
<http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=214361>
Kris Singh
Marcussen "shotgun in the
> face loudness factor" for 'loudness above audio'... TLA has made himself millions from other
> shitty practices... so I guess they're good practices and I'm the one who is wrong... or I'd
> have a Ferrari and a yacht and he'd have a '95 Cherokee 'Sport' w/128k miles..."
Why did you have Lord Alge in the same sentence then?? I am still not
clear of what you are trying to say. You did say he was by attaching
the auto-tune problem with the "loudness above audio" string. Like
they are hand in hand.
"He, and his brother(s) and his wannabe followers are also the
absolute masters of the "small
> sounding grainy mix" that has become oh so fucking prevalent on modern radio. "
His mixes do cut through. What is "GRAINY" about his mixes?? Dude,
what are you saying. Calling it "small" I can understand.
Over-compression can often be interpreted as small. "GRAINY????"
What does that mean? I have no clue where you get that from his
stuff. Example please. Early Iggy Pop records can sound grainy.
What is "Grainy" on a Tom Lord-Alge record???
"I was associated
> with a record where TLA/CLA mixed some of the same songs Jack Joseph Puig mixed... the
> differences were more than palpable. I was recently associated with a record that was mastered
> by Howie Weinburg, Steve Marcussen, Dave Collins and Bob Ludwig... all had interesting ideas...
> and while a couple of them came pretty close, none of them really nailed it... each had a wart,
> one had the least obtrusive wart and that's who's work will be on the release."
What does this mean?? What is this in response to? Who do you
like??? Why don't we start a thread where Mr. Fletcher speaks of the
good rather then what he does not like. Are you afraid to commend
something new????
"If you say so... my mileage has varied... I have just found a lack of
depth and intimacy to
> TLA's work [like he could give a fuck what some asshole pimp thinks]... could be the
> music/recording before it gets to him, could be the factory methods employed, could be I'm just
> fucking old and am whining about the "new shit" as my father whined about the Allman Brothers
> and The Stones... who knows."
Tom Lord-Alge is like a Harley. If you want that sound, get a Harley.
Nothing else sounds like it. Not a bad thing to have a hold on a
sound. It is his thing. Can't knock him... he has the Ferraris and
Yachts!!! LOL
"No, that may be why you employ it... but I think Jim Morrison proved
you can sing out of tune
> and still sell records. The people who might notice that _____ sang flat, sharp (whatever) in
> a live setting are pretty few and far between... in fact, some of us who would notice find a
> certain charm and "humanness" [is that a word?] when vocals are a tad off both on record and in
> live performance."
Then keep that as you mojo. Don't bust pitch anytime. It can't work
as a "it's OK for Morrison but not Avril...."
"Then again... someone like Avril Levigne (sp?) has no business making
> records in the first fucking place... but the technology employed made her a fucking star,
> didn't it."
No. She can sing. Fuck anyone who says she can't. There is no such
thing as a talent knob or plug-in. She gets across. That is it. She
is not greatness, but she can sing a little and looks good naked in
many young boys minds.... including mine.
"t could just be a 'varying mileage' thing again... I'm old, I like a
little soul
> in my music... I also like Tabasco in my Margaritas... so what the fuck do I know."
Maybe..... I will have to try the tabasaco!!!
"What *I* helped make a standard? Hello? McFly?... if it were up to
me most of the records
> would sound like a cross between 'Exile On Main St.' and 'London Calling'... raw fucking
> emotion, that smells like Bourbon and vomit..."
I can't argue that!! AMEN!
I said, " Records today don't sound terrible across the board, and I
> > would like you to acknowledge that."
>
>Fletcher said, "Acknowledged. However, many records that shouldn't
sound like shit, do sound like shit... I
> would like you to acknowledge that."
Agreed, but that is not just true for records of today. There are old
great records that sound like shit that didin't need to.
" Right... the 80's were a great example... and so is the modern
Pro-sTools abuse era... tools
> abused to create current fashion also put a time and date stamp on the music. Truly excellent
> recordings [where the technology doesn't impede the performance] are timeless. N.W.A.'s
> "Straight Outta Compton" sounds as fresh today as it did in 1987... "Appetite For Destruction"
> sounds as 'in your face' today as it did in 1988... "Nevermind" is still compelling 12 years
> later..."
Not true. I love those records, but they sound dated. "Nevermind"
sounds so dated it isn't even funny. Listen with your ears, it will
help you hear. Leave heart out of it. "Appetite" has gated reverb on
the snare. Hello 80s. They are in-your-face records, but they are
dated in their own respective ways. Pro Tools never dates a record.
Auto-Tune used as a effect does.
"The Stones "2000 Light Years From Home" blows... but "On Down The
> Line" is as cool as the day it was released... why? The 'time and date stamp' of the "fashion
> period" in terms of the "production techniques" is why... "
dude, GO AWAY. "200 light years..." and the whole "Satanic" record
are magic. They are great sounding well produced songs. The
mellotron in that song is the reason Fionna Apple had a career.
"Absolute agreement... with a caveat. Records *should* be deeper
than the tools employed. I
> think we're basically saying the same things here... I just get dismayed with the tools are
> used for evil instead of good... especially when they're used for evil by an operator that is
> trying to be 'fashionable'... or worse, is just plain old fucking incompetent... now, you can't
> argue with me that there are way too many incompetent motherfuckers making records today... if
> you can argue that, well then I'd be really impressed."
I agree completly there. No Argument.-Kris
Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote in message news:<3F3A3CFD...@mercenary.com>...
Rob Adelman
Fill X wrote:
> That's the essence of my gripe about modern mixing. Many beatles and stones
> records, just to site popular bands as examples, have tracks where the drums
> are very low and it's an artistic decision.
And the drums sit in one spot. I was listening to S.R.V. 'Texas Flood'
(sacd) last night and was impressed how the drums, bass, and vocals all
sit "in the pocket". Pretty much one spot, hardly any spread on the
drums at all. The guitar is placed off to the other side, which is of
course highlighted. This was consistent throughout the record, and it
really works nicely.
-Rob
EggHd
In many cases the artists themselves are asking for the mixers that mixed the
hit record they listen to over and over again. Many times it's the same
mixers.
The management can get into the paranoia bandwagon and want the person mixing
the hits as well.
Everyone involved in the record is guilty of picking the same people over and
over again.
Bob Olhsson
<moth...@aol.com> wrote:
>THE BAND THEMSELVES are often to blame as
>well.
My experience has been it's USUALLY the band or artist themselves.
I've seen far more artists shoot themselves in the foot than really get
screwed up by producers and labels. The producers and labels DO
invariably end up getting the blame unless it's a big hit in which case
they just get none of the credit.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
Bob Olhsson
<eg...@aol.com> wrote:
>Everyone involved in the record is guilty of picking the same people over and
>over again.
And on top of that, everybody considering giving it some airplay is
likely to be swayed by the number of familiar names they see in
addition to the focus group results.
Buster Mudd
> Autotune when applied by a skilled operator in small quantities can indeed help a track.
> Morphine applied in small quantities can be a very effective 'pain management' tool. Autotune,
> like Morphine, has a large propensity for abuse... and just as a novice junkie is far more
> likely to 'turn blue' than a veteran junkie... too many of the Pro-sTool wielding motherfuckers
> that plague our cities seem to have a propensity to use the power afforded them by the tools to
> the point of abuse...
Something about that paragraph reminds me of a quote I heard
attributed to Todd Rundgren. "Pitch shifters are like heroin: The
first time you put an Eventide Harmonizer on your tracks, it makes you
throw up. But after that, you just can't quit."
LeBaron & Alrich
Kris Singh <myname...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Llisten to "No Expectations" which is the 2nd cut on Beggars Banquet.
> Tell me he is not sitting on your lap. That was 1968. Get back to me
> after you hear that.
Can I trade him for Marianne Faithful? Please??
--
ha
Kris Singh
> >Llisten to "No Expectations" which is the 2nd cut on Beggars Banquet.
> >Tell me he is not sitting on your lap. That was 1968. Get back to me
> >after you hear that.
> >
>
> uh, yes, obviously not being born yesterday I know that cut. It as well as many
> other stones vocals have the voice loud in the mix. However, by standard of the
> day the vocals are not particulrly loud on Stones records. Many of the rock
> things the stones did work all the better because the vocal sits in the mix
> back like one of the other instruments. You hear this on some Zep cuts as well
> as early AC/DC records. You'd probably never be allowed today to let a vocal
> get back in there for effect. Instead, someone would complain that it wasn't
> loud enough.
>
to my personnal favorite song, "Highway To Hell" The vocal is in your
ear drum. Loud and amazing. I do not disagree with you about how
things sat in the old days being cool, but in no way do I agree with
you. I will explain deeper if you like.
> That's the essence of my gripe about modern mixing. Many beatles and stones
> records, just to site popular bands as examples, have tracks where the drums
> are very low and it's an artistic decision. No drummer or A&R person was
> running into the booth complaining about the snare sound most likely. I feel
> too much emphasis is placed on the sound of the individual instrument in a mix
> these days rather than using each thing musically as part of an artistic
> approach to a whole song.
>
Dude, we can mic things now individually. Back then they had one to
three mics on the drums. We can get more picky now. That is the
nature of evolution. You mentioned Led Zep earlier... they cared a
lot about how thier drums sounded. I do find merit in what you say, I
dig the last sentence of the above quote.
> As for my stones homework, I'll gladly listen to anything up through "Some
> Girls" but I refuse to take instruction from anyone who thinks "Voodoo Lounge"
> was a well produced record.
>
Voodoo Lounge sounds great. It is a taste thing. Not able to f*&k
with the 60s material they did, but it was a great sounding record for
the time it was made.
> > The new Jane's Addiction record is
> >heavily compressed, but it still has a great dynamic.
>
> Dynamic or dynamics?
>
> It is called,
> >talent. You can't hide it or destroy it with knobs.
>
> I wish they had tried harder.
>
Taste. I won't have beef with your opinons... I think Jane's has
come through with a great sounding, well preformed, well written
record. It has balls. Not the kind where they play at "11" for 48
minutes and scream. There are peeks and valleys and it takes me in
many directions. That is quality in my opinion.
Kris Singh
He doesn't slam the whole song... just vocals. I have heard mixes he
has done before they were mastered. That maybe the mastering
engineers fault.
Kurt Albershardt
> Kris Singh <myname...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Listen to "No Expectations" which is the 2nd cut on Beggars Banquet.
>> Tell me he is not sitting on your lap. That was 1968. Get back to me
>> after you hear that.
>
>
> Can I trade him for Marianne Faithful? Please??
Broken English, anyone?
Fletcher
>
> Why did you have Lord Alge in the same sentence then?? I am still not
> clear of what you are trying to say. You did say he was by attaching
> the auto-tune problem with the "loudness above audio" string. Like
> they are hand in hand.
The original line was: "Pro-sTools/Auto-Tuned-Lord-Alge/SSL-Marcussen Mastering type "loudness above
audio" stylings we are subjected to today"... lemme break it down into little chunks for you.
I find the whole "Pro-sTooled to death", which includes, but is not limited to "auto tuned into
submission" fashion trend to be annoying. I find the cookie cutter SSL gymnastics small sounding mix
fashion to be annoying [they are mutually exclusive, but oft times follow each other in the chain of
production]... and those product seem to be followed by the "Marcussen style" mastering job... and
right or wrong, it has always seemed to me that Marcussen started the "loudness wars". I could be
indicting the man for something he didn't really do... but my perception, which may indeed be skewed,
was that Marcussen is the man behind the loudness curtain.
So... to recap... the 3 things I find annoying about modern music production are 1) the overuse of
the power of Pro-sTools for what seems to be flashing of the potential power as opposed to the
enhancement of the musical statement; 2) the TLA mix style that is the current standard of the
industry; and 3) the "loudness above audio" mastering fashion of the day.
In the interest of brevity [which has obviously been shot in the fucking head at this point and is
bleeding by the quart into a pool or explanations of what I mistakenly thought was a fairly straight
forward concept] I strung the sHit Record Trifecta together. My bad, sorry, I swear on my mother
I'll never do that again.
OK?
>
>
> His mixes do cut through. What is "GRAINY" about his mixes?? Dude,
> what are you saying. Calling it "small" I can understand.
> Over-compression can often be interpreted as small. "GRAINY????"
> What does that mean?
Adjectives are funny things when applied to audio. I was talking about what sounds to me like the
employment of many onboard SSL compressors. I find DBX VCA's to sound 'grainy'... as in 'shitty,
harsh and nasty'... as in it seems to me that the switching noise of the steps of a DBX VCA when it's
in motion creates an upper, not so musical sounding harmonic that I find personally annoying as a
motherfucker. That is what I mean by "grainy". If you have another adjective I can use that doesn't
require a diatribe explanation... I will gladly employ it in any and all subsequent references to the
artifacts that are sonically apparent from the implementation of DBX VCA's.
>
>
> "I was associated
> > with a record where TLA/CLA mixed some of the same songs Jack Joseph Puig mixed... the
> > differences were more than palpable. I was recently associated with a record that was mastered
> > by Howie Weinburg, Steve Marcussen, Dave Collins and Bob Ludwig... all had interesting ideas...
> > and while a couple of them came pretty close, none of them really nailed it... each had a wart,
> > one had the least obtrusive wart and that's who's work will be on the release."
>
> What does this mean?? What is this in response to? Who do you
> like??? Why don't we start a thread where Mr. Fletcher speaks of the
> good rather then what he does not like. Are you afraid to commend
> something new????
Sure... I was associated with a record where TLA/CLA mixed some to the same song JJP mixed... JJP's
mixes where beautiful open and clear. JJP's mixes had an absolutely lovely range of emotion that was
enhanced by the audio presentation. CLA's mixes (for the most part) made the record... JJP and TLA
had one or two (I don't really remember) that made the record (I was in no position to make any call
what so ever... I was merely a semi interested by-stander)
I have no idea how to "speak of the good" any better than that... everything there was "positive"
wasn't it? As for the 'mastering' side of the story... I really can't say anything more "positive"
than "all had interesting ideas". The ideas were interesting. Not what I would have envisioned for
the record by a long shot... but definitely an eye opening, interesting event.
>
>
>
> Tom Lord-Alge is like a Harley. If you want that sound, get a Harley.
> Nothing else sounds like it. Not a bad thing to have a hold on a
> sound. It is his thing.
I may ride rice for the rest of my fucking life after reading that.
Ya know... if you actually listen to the sounds of H-D's... a Panhead sounds considerably different
than a Blockhead... and an Ironhead different than a Knucklehead... and with the possible exception
of the timing, a Shovelhead has a little less than nothing in common with the tone of a 104 cui.
stroked S&S V-Twin motor. Seeing as there is president for me explaining each and every fucking
analogy into submission... lemme cut to the fuckin' chase here...
There are a lot of variations to the sound of Harley Davidson style motorcycles. To lump all
Harley's into the same basket is just wrong [and annoying]. TLA/CLA's work does indeed have the same
"curve", "texture", "signature" [find me a fucking adjective I'm not going to have to debate...
OK?]... H-D's have a "curve" and a "texture"... but upon closer examination, there is less of the
"sameness" than can be found in mixes from the TLA/CLA et al school of factory mixing.
> Can't knock him... he has the Ferraris and
> Yachts!!! LOL
Yep... can't knock that in the slightest. I absolutely do appreciate what goes into that sort of
affluence... and more power to 'um for achieving it. Just as there is no mandate that I enjoy the
work, there is no mandate that I begrudge them their successes...
>
>
> "No, that may be why you employ it... but I think Jim Morrison proved
> you can sing out of tune
> > and still sell records.
<snip happens>
> Then keep that as you mojo. Don't bust pitch anytime. It can't work
> as a "it's OK for Morrison but not Avril...."
Huh? Now I need a 'clarification'...
>
> No. She can sing. Fuck anyone who says she can't. There is no such
> thing as a talent knob or plug-in. She gets across. That is it. She
> is not greatness, but she can sing a little and looks good naked in
> many young boys minds.... including mine.
Sorry... I forgot what period we're talking about. My bad. Yeah, I forgot that all you need to do
these days is look like a fuck sponge and have your shit reconstructed in Pro-sTools to be considered
a genius artiste... eMpTy-V is more than 20 years old at this point... you'd think I'd have fucking
learned by now... good Lord I'm a putz.
> <agreeing shit snipped>
>
> I said, " Records today don't sound terrible across the board, and I
> > > would like you to acknowledge that."
> >
> >Fletcher said, "Acknowledged. However, many records that shouldn't
> sound like shit, do sound like shit... I
> > would like you to acknowledge that."
>
> Agreed, but that is not just true for records of today. There are old
> great records that sound like shit that didin't need to.
Absolutely... but find me a "Led Zeppelin ___" that came from a Pro-sTools/SSL [insert favorite
famous mix dude name here]/Loud School of Mastering [shit... 3 in a row again... hope I don't have to
clarify this again...] production ideal.
Find me a record that hits home like "Sticky Fingers" on the first listen. I'm not trying to break
your balls (ok... maybe a little bit I am)... I sincerely would love to hear it. I'm way sick and
tired of 10-15-20-30 year old records still holding up or surpassing the emotional content of what's
in the Wall Mart record bins.
When was the last time the "audio" seriously enhanced the presentation? "OK Computer"? Whadda we
got? "Division Bell?"
>
> Not true. I love those records, but they sound dated. "Nevermind"
> sounds so dated it isn't even funny. Listen with your ears, it will
> help you hear. Leave heart out of it. "Appetite" has gated reverb on
> the snare. Hello 80s. They are in-your-face records, but they are
> dated in their own respective ways. Pro Tools never dates a record.
> Auto-Tune used as a effect does.
Really... and what would be your "date stamp" for 'Nevermind'?
Funny, I don't hear gated reverb on the snare [in that "Hugh Padgham" kind of gated snare signature
kinda sound]... some "non-lin II" from an RMX-16 perhaps, [but it ain't "Let's Dance" by a long
shot]... not enough to be any more than aggressive... and FWIW "non-lin II" hasn't entirely
disappeared from the mixing radar screen... granted, TLA/CLA don't seem to employ it, but it's still
out there.
Pro-sTools never dates a record? Pal-leeeze.
>
>
>
> dude, GO AWAY. "200 light years..." and the whole "Satanic" record
> are magic. They are great sounding well produced songs.
...but they're a definitely 'time stamped' event... where as the 'Jimmy Miller era' RS records could
just have easily been done in damn near any decade... as both the Black Crowes showed in the late
80's and the Yayhoos [and to a good extent the Bottle Rockets] exemplified in the late 90's
> The
> mellotron in that song is the reason Fionna Apple had a career.
And that would be a good thing... why?
>
> <more agreement snipped>
[note to Kris... I'm leaving on a family vacation tomorrow afternoon... so we only get to go one more
round of this... it is a kinda cool debate... but I've been absolutely instructed by both wife and
children that I am strictly forbidden to bring the laptop on the vacation... so we're gonna have to
wrap this up...]
EggHd
has done before they were mastered. That maybe the mastering
engineers fault. >>
I don't know about that. I have been in the studio listening to his mixes many
times and the stereo SSL comp is stitting straight up the entire mix, not to
mention every compressor on most channels.
Love him or hate him you can't claim they he doesn't slam or as he would say
spank his mixes.
ScotFraser
has done before they were mastered. That maybe the mastering
engineers fault. >>
A friend played me a tune he tracked & Lord-Alge mixed. Prior to mastering
there was NO dynamic range whatsoever. It hit zero on the downbeat & never left
through the whole tune. It sounded dumb.
Scott Fraser
transducr
> When was the last time the "audio" seriously enhanced the presentation? "OK Computer"? Whadda we
> got? "Division Bell?"
i know this a minor point in a very long reply, but i was a little
confused by the wording in this part...are you saying that "OK
Computer" is a modern example of "audio enhanc[ing] the presentation"?
or are you saying that it's an example of a modern attempt that tries
and falls short? or are you saying that it's more crap that people
think is great because there's so much worse crap happening in
contemporary music...i.e. it's the best we got for awhile so let's
celebrate it.
personally, i love that record so i'm curious to hear your take. (not
trolling, just interested to hear another perspective.)
i *do* think that they (radiohead/nigel godrich) used pro-tools, etc.
in a creative musical way that i don't think necessarily dates the
record. in my opinion it's a great example of exploiting the
technology musically, rather than letting the technology exploit and
rob the music...ok, ok, technology doesn't rob or exploit anything...i
always have to remind myself of the classic NRA line: "guns don't kill
people, people kill people". just like i shouldn't hate cellphones...i
should hate ridiculous yuppies who can't drive and talk on a phone
simultaneously...yet insist on doing both anyway. (sorry...)
anyway, that being said about "OK Computer", i don't think that it's
nigel godrich's best work to date sonically speaking. i think he was
still finding his stride.
i think the follow-up, KidA, is a beautiful record both sonically and
production-wise.
also, godrich's work with Travis is some of my favorite contmeporary
recording work. though it has some of that godrich flavor, the mood
and tone is pretty contrast to his work with radiohead and he manages
to make the recordings sound as warm and personal as the songwriting.
tasteful stuff that i think will stand up very well over the years.
seems like everytime i hear his newest work it sounds better than the
last thing he worked on and that's a great thing...unless you're the
second to last artist he worked with!
i would be interested to hear who you (and whoever else is reading
this thread) think *is* making (as far as producing, recording,
mixing) records that may stand the test of time these days...
david
<Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote:
> Find me a record that hits home like "Sticky Fingers" on the first listen.
> I'm not trying to break
> your balls (ok... maybe a little bit I am)... I sincerely would love to hear
> it. I'm way sick and
> tired of 10-15-20-30 year old records still holding up or surpassing the
> emotional content of what's
> in the Wall Mart record bins.
Try Black Rebel Motorcycle Club's self titled 2001 release. Some of the
intros and outros are a bit excessive, but that record moves me.
(Pretty fuckin stupid name 'tho.)
And why always the pissing on Satanic Majesty?? Some of us old farts
had some wonderful times with that record. Sure, it ain't no Exile or
Pepper, and you can't listen to "Why don't we sing this song all
together" the long version, without being wrecked on something. But I
love "2000 Light Years From Home."
David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island
Fill X
actually I don't need anything explained to me, but thanks
.>Dude, we can mic things now individually
i know, it's led to big problems.
. Back then they had one to
>three mics on the drums. We can get more picky now. That is the
>nature of evolution. You mentioned Led Zep earlier... they cared a
>lot about how thier drums sounded.
yes, and used minimal mic'ing to get it.
It's fine for us all to have different taste, but I'm done arguing where we
think a vocal sits in records we both are familliar with. My ac/dc point had to
do very much with the same stones point. Bon Scott had a reedy voice that cut
through and the song arrangements allowed space for it, hence it gets to be
back in the mix on many ac/dc songs and still heard. This is of no consequence
really.
Fill X
pancakes.
Ricky W. Hunt
news:29ca82c9.03081...@posting.google.com...
> Dude, we can mic things now individually. Back then they had one to
> three mics on the drums. We can get more picky now.
Which forces me to paraphrase Jeff Goldblum in "Jurassic Park": "just
because you can doesn't mean you should."
EggHd
LOL!
Fletcher
> Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote in message news:<3F3B8ADD...@mercenary.com>...
> > When was the last time the "audio" seriously enhanced the presentation? "OK Computer"? Whadda we
> > got? "Division Bell?"
>
> i know this a minor point in a very long reply, but i was a little
> confused by the wording in this part...are you saying that "OK
> Computer" is a modern example of "audio enhanc[ing] the presentation"?
> or are you saying that it's an example of a modern attempt that tries
> and falls short?
I thought that the audio on both OK Computer and Kid A [same with Division Bell] enhanced the musical
presentation... so before those albums were jammed back in my face, I figured I'd bring them up...
sometimes my propensity for sarcasm can get in the way of clarifying statements... if only vocal
inflection could come through the typed word as well as the spoken word things would be much easier.
Ty Ford
And the guitar essence of AC/DC is (was) two note chords. That left the
space required for the rest of the band and vocals. Most people lost track
of that just before the Seattle Grunge Sound came into favor.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Jim Kollens
farts
>had some wonderful times with that record.
Heh, that was my favorite Stones album, of course I felt a lot like the cover
looked.
Jim Kollens: Some people have a studio in a room in their home. I have a
bedroom in my studio. As my tech said the first time he visited my house:
"Well I can see right away you ain't married."
tbo...@hotmail.com
".. That's the essence of my gripe about modern mixing. Many beatles and stones
records, just to site popular bands as examples, have tracks where the drums
are very low and it's an artistic decision. No drummer or A&R person was
running into the booth complaining about the snare sound most likely. I feel
too much emphasis is placed on the sound of the individual instrument in a mix
these days rather than using each thing musically as part of an artistic
approach to a whole song.."
This sums it up nicely.
EggHd
running into the booth complaining about the snare sound most likely. >>
In the Beatles case, the producer was also the president of their record
company.
david
<jimko...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dave Correia: >And why always the pissing on Satanic Majesty?? Some of us
> old
> farts
> >had some wonderful times with that record.
>
> Heh, that was my favorite Stones album, of course I felt a lot like the cover
> looked.
Remember when somone told you the Beatles were somewhere in the cover?
I could only find 2 of them, had to be shown where the other two were.
Now that was pretty damn cool, putting the Beatles on a Rolling Stones
album cover.
transducr
> transducr wrote:
>
> > Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote in message news:<3F3B8ADD...@mercenary.com>...
> > > When was the last time the "audio" seriously enhanced the presentation? "OK Computer"? Whadda we
> > > got? "Division Bell?"
> >
> > i know this a minor point in a very long reply, but i was a little
> > confused by the wording in this part...are you saying that "OK
> > Computer" is a modern example of "audio enhanc[ing] the presentation"?
> > or are you saying that it's an example of a modern attempt that tries
> > and falls short?
>
> I thought that the audio on both OK Computer and Kid A [same with Division Bell] enhanced the musical
> presentation... so before those albums were jammed back in my face, I figured I'd bring them up...
> sometimes my propensity for sarcasm can get in the way of clarifying statements... if only vocal
> inflection could come through the typed word as well as the spoken word things would be much easier.
very much agreed. (on the audio and typed word points alike)
i learned after making a few embarrassing angry rebuttals to friends,
that it's important to re-read, give the benefit of the doubt and/or
ask for clarification when it comes to typed conversations...
Jim Kollens
>album cover.
I don't think that the original 3-d cover has been available for years, has it?
Oh, I forgot; vinyl is actually gone, more or less. I actually cut the thing
out and built a high-psychedelic frame for it in the 60's. Boy, what different
times we live in.
georgeh
Not so if you're refering to Sir George Martin. He was a salaried
(and probably underpaid) employee in EMI's lowliest division (Parlaphone).
LeBaron & Alrich
> Not so if you're refering to Sir George Martin. He was a salaried
> (and probably underpaid) employee in EMI's lowliest division (Parlaphone).
EggHd's talking about the Apple Records era.
> eg...@aol.com (EggHd) writes:
>
> >In the Beatles case, the producer was also the president of their record
> >company.
--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
EggHd
probably underpaid) employee in EMI's lowliest division (Parlaphone). >>
George Martin was the president of Parlaphone, which was a comedy and classical
label for the EMI group.
he never received points on any Beatle related recording until Live and Let Die
by Wings, when, even though he had left EMI and formed AIR around Sgt Pepper,
he still was bound by his contract as to his work on Beatles and members
recordings
ScotFraser
had some wonderful times with that record. Sure, it ain't no Exile or
Pepper, and you can't listen to "Why don't we sing this song all
together" the long version, without being wrecked on something. But I
love "2000 Light Years From Home." >>
'Citadel' still does it for me. Chimiest of chimy guitar chord riffs ever
recorded.
Scott Fraser