Some of your first post was actually pretty uncalled for. It's fine to have opinions, even passionate ones, about music, and I think the idea of cutting off the highs is good advice and I appreciate it. "Stick is up your ass" isn't appreciated.

As far a "schlock and schmalz", I agree that stuff is great and the best place to find it is in 70s Library Music. My all-time favorite band is Stereolab and I think this is due, in large part, to the Library Music influence on their sound.

The idea to run synths through an amp and mic them is a really good one. I go back and forth on how important it is to perceive sounds as existing in a physical space. I remember reading somewhere, it might have been on this board, that mastering to tape slightly enhances the warm harmonics in the different sounds and 'brings them together', or makes the different elements of the song sound like they're coming from the same place. I don't understand how this works, but I have been interested in 80s cassette culture lately and I agree that there's something about cassette recording that somehow gathers the song together.

I guess I'm trying to think about 'vintage' or 'lo-fi' recording and separate what's contrived about trying to produce this way from what's beneficial. I'm a big fan of Ariel Pink's earlier, straight-to-cassette albums and I think it's because it's so muddy that your mind almost has to fill in the blanks, like you have to use your imagination to hear what he was going for. I'm not interested in emulating that style, though.

Anyway thanks for the tips.

Im not even going to bother attempting to answer what is simply far too much and even if i tried then it would be carpel tunnel suicide. There are many great books available which cover all you need to know and the rest is putting in the years. If you want a 1970's sound then either find Doctor Who's Tardis, Doc's Dolorian or invest in alot of money into piecing together a studio made up of the equipment that you like and is 70's correct. No Digital Audio Workstation, No plug-ins and have fun cutting yer timeless masterpieces to vinyl

Most of all though have fun

I did say to cut the 12KHz and above and then boost around 310Hz before sticking it up your ass, it's not like I totally insulted you without offering actual advice. the simple fact is that people never progress when they spend all their time just trying to emulate a sound that already exists instead of learning how things work and for people like me and the guy who directed me here it get infuriating because it's just yet another example of someone just trying to propagate the planet with more of the same and it does get boring when someone asks yet again how to get the Deadmau5 bassline sound or the piano sound from imagine or how to sound like David Gilmour.

there's just no attempt at even making your own sound these days.

+1 for Nekro's answer.

you're asking some good questions, but it's too much to be answered in a forum post. your best bet is to read some good books about mixing and i would highly recommend The Art And Science Of Mixing by Roey Izhaki and Mixing Secrets For The Small Studio by Mike Senior.

I'm just learning mastering, so please take this with a grain of salt - just an opinion....

I've often thought the same - short of limiting and dithering, it seemed the real purpose of mastering was to tease better sound/mix out of pre-recorded material, partially because you're ability to alter the sound was somewhat limited. Like you said, if a synth sounds to dull, you now have the ability to change the patch, eq, etc.

However, there are definitely other uses for mastering tools/plugs on the master buss - things you can't do (or can't do easily) to individual channels. You may, for example, have multiple instruments that contribute to the low end, and want to compress below a certain frequency and bring it into the center. You may want to boost some frequencies and add a harmonic exciter for all the all the high mids (vocals and guitars), but only on the side channels, etc. (don't know why, but just an example!) You can work on the individual tracks, but working in the frequency domain across all the instruments helps provide that special "glue" - which is even more important for a vintage sound. And it can be a lot easier to try something out and toss/edit it, rather than tweak many individual channels.

But I'm no expert - just an observation

that's not the least bit true.

technically speaking it is very true, you need to strip off the high end and boost the low end prior to cutting and then put those frequencies back to the way they were using an RIAA preamp. that is a bodge attempt at sound reproduction if ever there was one. I can concede that people prefer the sound to vinyl records sometimes but that is because they like the limitations and colouring that they put into the audio signal.
but you can't tell me that they are good at sound reproduction because they just aren't.

I'm with the curmudgeon on vinyl. It's hugely inferior to any digital format. And I mean in terms of reproducing what was put into it. The gold standard of any recording format should be to exactly reproduce what comes out of your master channels. Vinyl never did that. I still have several old analogue synths, and still love them. I have a couple of VCA compressors that I wouldn't part with for any money, yet almost every other FX I use is digital, and so is my DAW. And I'd rather even go back to using a DAT than having to record on vinyl. I don't miss it, despite appreciating other old gear. Casettes too - even cruddy old MP3 is better than cassette recordings - some of those cassettes could barely record 14kHz.

Yes, the saturation in itself could be a pleasant effect, but it's only a nice effect if it's used on a good recording - and the limitations of cassette meant that most of the time you couldn't actually have a good recording with it. I do remember hearing some cassette recordings of drum tracks done in a studio with a rather expensive cassette recorder that really sounded good, even surprised me that they were done on cassette because they were so good - but it was mostly of drum machines like 909s etc where there was no top end to appreciate. But I wouldn't want any of my masters done on that cassette recorder. Anything like cassette will have specific uses - it doesn't mean that it's always good though.

I have no problem with appreciating characteristics of old gear if it's for good reason. Some old mics, keyboards, flangers, plates etc are still great. But it's because they sound individual with their own specific character that is intentional. For me, vinyl and cassette couldn't do what they were supposed to. i.e. record faithfully.

I'd rather use some old gear for its own character where needed, and then record it faithfully with pristine digital and some sparkling digital reverbs. Use old gear where it's of benefit, not just because it's old.


But I do take exception to dissing recordings of examples like the Beatles and some of the Floyd stuff. Perhaps some of them don't stand up to production standards of today, but they were stunning by the standard of their own day. It's almost impossible to directly compare because the available equipment was by definition so inferior to what you can do with today's. And I still maintain that something like DSOTM by Floyd still stands up to the better produced music of today (in terms of production - I'm not talking about the actual merits of the music). It is certainly streaks ahead of the averagely produced music of today.

But yeah, I think too many forget that when DAT and CD came out, we all flocked to it exactly because of the limitations of vinyl and tape. i still shake my head when I hear people wanting to add moise to tracks, in some notion of emulating old desks or tape. We used to spend a fortune on better desks back in the day to get rid of noise.

I only really diss these recordings because people go on about how perfect they are, they hold them up as some beacon of perfection, yes for their day they were very good, with the Beatles they always tried new technology always wanted more studio gear and so on and for that I am right behind and for their day yes it was good, they experimented made some mistakes but importantly they progressed however the 70's then ended, the 80's came along digital became more widespread and entered the audio world, people experimented with that again sometimes failing but not as often as people make out and they progressed same story in the 90's but as the internet grew to be more inclusive of everyone this obsession with the 70's sound exploded and people are just getting f**ked in the head about it and it's really annoying me and quite a few other people in fact I go as far as to say it's embarrassing especially when these idiots buy up these overpriced audio units built on tech from the 30s' and 40's and then putting it through ADC/DACs through DAWs so they loose most of the "warmth" anyway it's beyond a joke. every month my subscription to my audio magazines arrive through the door and without fail they mention the beatles and blood dark side of the moon like it was the Apex of everything. well no, it was good then but things are a hell of alot better now and people who think otherwise have obviously only ever listened to chart music of this era. those who think the 80's was crap for audio, listen to Queen/sepultura/nirvana and so on and shut up.

that wasn't anger directed at you Kritikon I just got carried away haha I am glad that you agree with the fact that vinyl is inferior I just wanted to point out where I stand when it comes to The beatles and so on.

the people who tried to add noise and mains cycle hum to recordings shouldn't be allowed near music as far as I'm concerned, THAT is embarrassing to me as an e. engineer!

as far as cassette saturation goes it's a bit of a funny one, I've seen people like Bob Katz going on about nice tape saturation and then do lectures on "the loudness war" (which is something else that is a crock of shit)
if you limit something in the correct manner then slamming or shredding really helps a mix, you don't get snare drums and other loud plosives boring them selves into your brain when it's nicely limited and they say "if you want it louder turn it up" well my answer to that is "if you want it quieter turn it down!"

It seems you have a funny addiction for extreme comparisons . No offense, but I'm pretty sure there's more nuances to the loudness war than to reduce it to some crock of shit. There's no turn it louder or turn it quieter when the mix is rightly balanced. There's just turn it wherever and it still sounds great (and the majority of Bob Katz recording I listened to achieves just that.)

I like some tape hiss here and there, for the fun of it. In fact, I like almost any kind of noise used creatively (vinyl crackles, hum and all…) when it's an intrinsic part of the composition vibe, as in Trip Hop, Chill Out or other similar genres.

Though I admit I find it weird to automatically slap noises on top of a whole piece with the ultimate goal of recreating the sound of a (golden?) past era.

Now, concerning the many questions of the original post (which I don't remember half of them, shame on me.) I think there's no secret formula. I also love the 70's sound but, the more I listen closely, the more I find disparities between multiple recordings: on some records the instruments are drier than dry and on other ones it's a crazy festival of effects of all kinds…

I think the 70's sound has a lot to do with, generally, sparser arrangement. Now that we can add unlimited tracks, people sometimes abuse this opportunity.

Anyway, in 2012, we have all the best options at hand. We can use a truckload of virtual vintage gear to record that mud and dirt and make it sound crisp and clear, if that makes any sense…

But to find answers to all your questions: record, record and record. Listen, listen and listen. Mix, mix and mix. And take some mandatory off-time to renew your perspective, this is a trick I found too late in the game, but it's the most important of all in my opinion.

Have fun!

my life is a series of extremes unfortunately so it tends to be the way I understand and communicate things. I know there is no "turn it up or turn it down" thing in reality but it's thing I always hear/see when people moan about stuff being limited, they say "if you want it louder simply turn it up"

when you say you put a bit of hiss here and there etc to add to the vibe of a song, I know exactly what you mean and I have nothing at all against that I even do that with the odd intro to a song where I make it sound like vinyl+cut low and high end so it explodes into the song.

I suppose I just get pissed off with people going on about loudness and the 70's I just think they should all go start a cult and live on their own little island somewhere with their record players and brown/yellow wall paper and the rest of the world can carry on actually progressing making some mistakes along the way.

Not entirely. Mastering is also about spreading the process and responsibility of creating a very polished professional recording between a number of different people who work in different environments (and use different ears). It often helps for the recording and mixing team to pass the stereo recording on to a mastering engineer, partly because that last person to craft the record hasn't been listing to it over and over again as it slowly took shape (as the producer and recording engineers do), and is a second person to review the result that the mix engineer came up with, then make adjustments according to whatever they feel will make improvements.

The biggest problems with many of the new recordings I hear is that they sound very different from the band when playing live. For me it is a point to hear the same band on the recordings as live, and in such process auto-tools (tools which master the user instead of the user mastering the tools) easy make an generalization which cut of the unique aspects of the band. In such, I set gain-riding higher than compressors/limiters, vocal training higher than autotune and real reverb higher than algorithmic reverbs and so on. And of that reason, in many cases, older recordings with less advanced auto-tools available, sounds more natural and similar to the band they try to recreate.

Mastering is foremost, from the word glass master, the process of making a record ready for duplication and release. A great mix doesn't need any further processing, and so the mastering in this case is about breaks between tracks, PQ-coding and such stuff. So the essential, especially in a digital domain, is to go for a great sounding mix.

That's an interesting take on things. For me, the record has always been more important than the live performance. I don't generally like live performances. They're usually too loud, for one thing. At rock concerts, the band has been amplified to the point that the sound distorts in the space, or in my ear, and doesn't resemble four or five musicians in a physical space, playing their instruments. In other words, it's an inauthentic representation, even live.

I had a friend who cut a record at Steve Albini's studio a little over a decade ago, and he said Albini would go to great lengths to get the natural, unadulterated sound he wanted. For instance, he had a pit that was 4 or 6 feet deep in one of the rooms, and in the walls of the pit were adobe clay. They would go down in there and assemble the drum kit in the pit because he thought this gave you the best drum sounds.

I would like to go to more music performances that were intimate, acoustic, and unamplified, so the music I was experiencing was really happening in front of my ears. I don't think I've ever had such an experience in my lifetime.

Marshall McLuhan famously said "The medium is the message", and this is true of modern (and postmodern) forms of music. Take surf music, for example. The drippy spring reverb is as much a part of the form as the whammy bar, or as the electric guitar itself. The limitations of an old MPC, and the crunchy 16-bit samples it stored, are part of the form of golden era Hip Hop.

I fully understand your perspective. I've never been to an unamplified concert (besides my house concerts as a young at my local music school which was purely the instruments and nothing more). But I've been to some great jazz concerts with have to a great extent preserved the acoustic and intimate sound of it (like a concert with sami joik and contrabass as the only instruments).

Further, all effects aren't auto-tools for me... Mainly processors who takes the work from the engineer, are auto-tools for me. Creative use of effects; like fuzz on tuba which the jazz group Pelbo do, are something I find cool (as long as it preserve the identity of the musicians, cause music which only manifest through the musicians is art for me).