VCC, VTM, Blah, Blah, Blah...What The Hell Is Wrong With Me?
-
- KVRian
- 1194 posts since 27 May, 2008
xln rc-20 then
-
- KVRist
- 152 posts since 7 May, 2006
This is where Mixbuss 32c has the advantage. Maybe all console makers should adapt to that way of thinking and create extensions of their own Mixbuss type system which the DSP is modeled off that manufactures console. Or something like that.
-
- KVRian
- 1102 posts since 30 Oct, 2005
I disagree wholeheartly! /or maybe dont understand you well?wagtunes wrote: I don't think this is really a question of whether a tune is good or not. Naturally, if the music sucks who cares what it sounds like.
/If the music is really good I don't care much how it sounds /if its not complete crap/:
for instance - I like most of John Cale's studio records, but I tend to like best his Carribean Sunset, which is - soundwise - probably the most crappy one!
or even more extreme example:
I like Dark Side of the Moon or Wish You Were Here the same as Alien Soundtracks or Half Machine Lip Moves, although soudwise you hardly find more different albums from that period /something like brutal lo-fi against the best hi-fi/...
personally I dont like to emulate someones sound or style, because you can NEVER overcome the original and it doesnt matter how hard you have tried - in best case you will be blamed for plagiatorism...in worst case you only wasted your time...be yourselfwagtunes wrote: But if you're trying to emulate a certain "sound" especially if you're doing a retro piece, you'd like to try to get that sound as authentic as possible. Otherwise, why don't we all just use our DAWs with what they come with and not buy anything at all?
-
Funkybot's Evil Twin Funkybot's Evil Twin https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=116627
- KVRAF
- 12438 posts since 16 Aug, 2006
Back to the original post: I think part of the issue is expecting to get "that sound" from gear and not from the process. Let's talk about what was happening in recording studios in the 60's and 70's for example (a lot of this is not applicable to 80s and 90s):
1. Bands tracking [at least basic tracks] live in a room. Those rooms were recording studios. Engineers worked there. There were no virtual guitars or bass, or auto-tune, or MIDI, or quantized drums (outside of maybe playing to a click). Hardly any artists were building up tracks by doing everything themselves at home (Emmitt Rhodes - and who?). Music was generally live and collaborative with errors. You want that sound? Get a good room, some baffles, a bunch of microphones and call some buddies over to track some basics.
2. Microphones. Look at old photos of bands in studios and look at the microphones and mic setup. Notice how you don't see a ton of condensers outside of vocal microphones? Sure, The Beatles and Pink Floyd may have used fancy Nuemann microphones on vocals and even guitars, but even in Abbey Road, there were a LOT of dynamic microphones getting used on drums, pianos, etc. Your piano sample library probably features multiple condensers and zero dynamic microphones. Ribbons were big too. On top of the type, look at how many channels of microphones they used on drums and compare that to your sample libraries. That kit that was recorded with 2 Large Diaphragm Condensers (LDC's) as OH's, with 3 LDC room microphones, and another LDC on the outside of the kick, with another 9 microphones on the other drums isn't going to sound like a 60's kit. Mono dynamic microphone as an overhead, another on kick and another on snare? That's closer to being in the neighborhood. Condensers are much more prevelant today, and much brighter. Also, if you were using a condenser outside of vocals back in the day, you were probably tracking with it further away from the source than we do today (in a nicer sounding room than most of us have access to).
3. Mono. Even when the mixes were stereo, what else was? In the 60's, mono pianos, mono drums, mono everything. The first and only time The Beatles used stereo drums was on The End.
4. Outboard. Look at control room photos. You know what else you don't see? Racks and racks of 30 compressors and outboard mic pres and EQ's. The proliferation of huge racks of outboard seems to have started in the 80's, prior to that, there may have been a few choice pieces of gear but not entire walls of dedicated outboard. You think the kick and snare were being compressed on their own channels, with more compressors dedicated to the drum submix, bass, vocals, and every channel of everything? I'm not saying they didn't have compressors or didn't use them back in the day, but not like how we do today. And in the 50's there was going to be less channel compression than in the 60's, which is less than the 70's, etc. Here's another: microphone preamps were almost always the console preamps. Most consoles were NOT Neves. No fancy outboard. EQ? Maybe you'd see a series of Pultecs following Phil Spector around, but that was absolutely top of the line gear following a huge name producer. Sure, you eventually started seeing EQ built into consoles, but they weren't always there or what we think of today. You didn't see racks and racks of EQ's, they weren't getting inserted into every channel. So if you've got compressors and EQ's and other outboard on all your channels, you're probably not starting in the right place.
5. Reverb. How many different reverbs did recording studios have? How many Lexicon verbs were getting used in the 60's? How many studios could afford a stereo EMT Plate? Reverbs were either: 1) springs, 2) chambers, or 3) plates (if you were lucky). The room itself is the 4th type if you're getting technical. Now, we've got some virtual springs of varying quality and some good plates. You may want to consider sticking to mono on your reverb sends, though stereo EMT plates certainly existed. Chambers meant sending your audio through a speaker and running it down a plastered hallway or brick chamber with a microphone at the end (mono). There was likely a filter built into the signal path to control the low-end and possibly the high end. Could you simulate that in the box? Sure.
Wagtunes, I've heard some of your stuff and you rely heavily on virtual guitars, vocals, etc. That's not going to get you "that sound." I'd really suggest saying "screw it" and trying to mic up some of these instruments even if you don't have the best microphones, room, or instruments. Call some buddies over and collaborate if you can't do this stuff on your own. If all of this is imposisble, then maybe do the best you can and just accept that it may not be 100%. Just try to be satisfied doing your own thing.
1. Bands tracking [at least basic tracks] live in a room. Those rooms were recording studios. Engineers worked there. There were no virtual guitars or bass, or auto-tune, or MIDI, or quantized drums (outside of maybe playing to a click). Hardly any artists were building up tracks by doing everything themselves at home (Emmitt Rhodes - and who?). Music was generally live and collaborative with errors. You want that sound? Get a good room, some baffles, a bunch of microphones and call some buddies over to track some basics.
2. Microphones. Look at old photos of bands in studios and look at the microphones and mic setup. Notice how you don't see a ton of condensers outside of vocal microphones? Sure, The Beatles and Pink Floyd may have used fancy Nuemann microphones on vocals and even guitars, but even in Abbey Road, there were a LOT of dynamic microphones getting used on drums, pianos, etc. Your piano sample library probably features multiple condensers and zero dynamic microphones. Ribbons were big too. On top of the type, look at how many channels of microphones they used on drums and compare that to your sample libraries. That kit that was recorded with 2 Large Diaphragm Condensers (LDC's) as OH's, with 3 LDC room microphones, and another LDC on the outside of the kick, with another 9 microphones on the other drums isn't going to sound like a 60's kit. Mono dynamic microphone as an overhead, another on kick and another on snare? That's closer to being in the neighborhood. Condensers are much more prevelant today, and much brighter. Also, if you were using a condenser outside of vocals back in the day, you were probably tracking with it further away from the source than we do today (in a nicer sounding room than most of us have access to).
3. Mono. Even when the mixes were stereo, what else was? In the 60's, mono pianos, mono drums, mono everything. The first and only time The Beatles used stereo drums was on The End.
4. Outboard. Look at control room photos. You know what else you don't see? Racks and racks of 30 compressors and outboard mic pres and EQ's. The proliferation of huge racks of outboard seems to have started in the 80's, prior to that, there may have been a few choice pieces of gear but not entire walls of dedicated outboard. You think the kick and snare were being compressed on their own channels, with more compressors dedicated to the drum submix, bass, vocals, and every channel of everything? I'm not saying they didn't have compressors or didn't use them back in the day, but not like how we do today. And in the 50's there was going to be less channel compression than in the 60's, which is less than the 70's, etc. Here's another: microphone preamps were almost always the console preamps. Most consoles were NOT Neves. No fancy outboard. EQ? Maybe you'd see a series of Pultecs following Phil Spector around, but that was absolutely top of the line gear following a huge name producer. Sure, you eventually started seeing EQ built into consoles, but they weren't always there or what we think of today. You didn't see racks and racks of EQ's, they weren't getting inserted into every channel. So if you've got compressors and EQ's and other outboard on all your channels, you're probably not starting in the right place.
5. Reverb. How many different reverbs did recording studios have? How many Lexicon verbs were getting used in the 60's? How many studios could afford a stereo EMT Plate? Reverbs were either: 1) springs, 2) chambers, or 3) plates (if you were lucky). The room itself is the 4th type if you're getting technical. Now, we've got some virtual springs of varying quality and some good plates. You may want to consider sticking to mono on your reverb sends, though stereo EMT plates certainly existed. Chambers meant sending your audio through a speaker and running it down a plastered hallway or brick chamber with a microphone at the end (mono). There was likely a filter built into the signal path to control the low-end and possibly the high end. Could you simulate that in the box? Sure.
Wagtunes, I've heard some of your stuff and you rely heavily on virtual guitars, vocals, etc. That's not going to get you "that sound." I'd really suggest saying "screw it" and trying to mic up some of these instruments even if you don't have the best microphones, room, or instruments. Call some buddies over and collaborate if you can't do this stuff on your own. If all of this is imposisble, then maybe do the best you can and just accept that it may not be 100%. Just try to be satisfied doing your own thing.
-
Funkybot's Evil Twin Funkybot's Evil Twin https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=116627
- KVRAF
- 12438 posts since 16 Aug, 2006
Just to add, because I'm enjoying the thought exercise:
6. Arrangement, panning and frequency balance. Outside of Phil Spector or Brian Wilson Pet Sounds era productions, you're probably talking about fewer instruments in the arrangement. At least for rock and bubblegum pop productions. Sinatra and other big-band types of work obviously wouldn't apply. When it comes to the mix: go back to those old stereo mixes...you're probably talking LCR (Left, Center, Right) panning. Listen to the frequency balance. There's probably not going to be a big fat kick, the bass won't have a ton of low end. The vocals and the guitars won't have a ton of high-end. There's probably going to be some weird panning decisions (bass or drums not centered, maybe vocals hard panned) due to all the bouncing and submixing. Speaking of which...
7. Submix and bounce. If you want an old 60's vibe and you're not hearing your tape machine plugin...then you're probably not bouncing enough. Pretend like you've got 4 tracks and you're tracking at least drums, guitars and bass live. You'll need to reserve a track for vocals. Going to be a piano or other keys? That's gotta be in there too. Where does all this stuff go? Well, take all your drums (should only be a few channels/microphones), do a quick mix, maybe add a broad EQ or compressor, and mix them down to one channel. Add a tape machine. Where does the bass go? On the drum channel? If so, bounce those down to one track and add a tape machine there. Or does bass go somewhere else? Do your EQ or compression as you go because you wouldn't have a lot of those. Guitar and keys on one mono track? Maybe. Background vocals? Got to think about where those are going. May need to bounce again to free up another track. Add a another tape machine to the bounced tracks. Percussion? Where do those go? May need to bounce again. Add another tape machine plugin. Noise level going up? Transients getting soft? High end rolling off? Good. Remember to keep things mono and mix as you go. If you end up with 4 active channels to mix, you're probably going to be a lot closer to "that sound" than if you were mixing 16 channels with 16 tape machine plugins.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Slate's VTM is two very clean tape machines. It's a mastering deck and a Studer A80 if I remember correctly. You may want to do this stuff with more colorful tape plugins like Toneboosters ReelBus.
6. Arrangement, panning and frequency balance. Outside of Phil Spector or Brian Wilson Pet Sounds era productions, you're probably talking about fewer instruments in the arrangement. At least for rock and bubblegum pop productions. Sinatra and other big-band types of work obviously wouldn't apply. When it comes to the mix: go back to those old stereo mixes...you're probably talking LCR (Left, Center, Right) panning. Listen to the frequency balance. There's probably not going to be a big fat kick, the bass won't have a ton of low end. The vocals and the guitars won't have a ton of high-end. There's probably going to be some weird panning decisions (bass or drums not centered, maybe vocals hard panned) due to all the bouncing and submixing. Speaking of which...
7. Submix and bounce. If you want an old 60's vibe and you're not hearing your tape machine plugin...then you're probably not bouncing enough. Pretend like you've got 4 tracks and you're tracking at least drums, guitars and bass live. You'll need to reserve a track for vocals. Going to be a piano or other keys? That's gotta be in there too. Where does all this stuff go? Well, take all your drums (should only be a few channels/microphones), do a quick mix, maybe add a broad EQ or compressor, and mix them down to one channel. Add a tape machine. Where does the bass go? On the drum channel? If so, bounce those down to one track and add a tape machine there. Or does bass go somewhere else? Do your EQ or compression as you go because you wouldn't have a lot of those. Guitar and keys on one mono track? Maybe. Background vocals? Got to think about where those are going. May need to bounce again to free up another track. Add a another tape machine to the bounced tracks. Percussion? Where do those go? May need to bounce again. Add another tape machine plugin. Noise level going up? Transients getting soft? High end rolling off? Good. Remember to keep things mono and mix as you go. If you end up with 4 active channels to mix, you're probably going to be a lot closer to "that sound" than if you were mixing 16 channels with 16 tape machine plugins.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Slate's VTM is two very clean tape machines. It's a mastering deck and a Studer A80 if I remember correctly. You may want to do this stuff with more colorful tape plugins like Toneboosters ReelBus.
-
Funkybot's Evil Twin Funkybot's Evil Twin https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=116627
- KVRAF
- 12438 posts since 16 Aug, 2006
BTW, if anyone is really interested in this stuff, I cant recommend the "Recording the Beatles" book enough. It's not inexpensive, but it's huge, very well put together, and goes into great detail about the gear, the microphone setups for each songs, how they were bounced, etc. Really great stuff.
http://www.curvebender.com/rtb.html
It's $100, but a great gift to yourself (or maybe you can talk someone into getting you an xmas present) if you're into geeking out over this stuff. Particularly if you're a Beatles fan, but even if you're not, it's a great insight into recording and the gear at Abbey Road in the 60's.
http://www.curvebender.com/rtb.html
It's $100, but a great gift to yourself (or maybe you can talk someone into getting you an xmas present) if you're into geeking out over this stuff. Particularly if you're a Beatles fan, but even if you're not, it's a great insight into recording and the gear at Abbey Road in the 60's.
-
thecontrolcentre thecontrolcentre https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=76240 - KVRAF
- 37261 posts since 27 Jul, 2005 from Scottish Borders
-
- KVRAF
- 8071 posts since 9 Jan, 2003 from Saint Louis MO
Going back to the original question: there have been plenty of plugins, demos of plugins, and presets on compressors etc. that are supposed to saturate, warm up, sound like vintage gear or whatever... and I either hear no difference, or no difference that matters, or it just sounds "different" but not better.
I'm not really trying to sound like records from a previous decade anyway, or imitate anything else, so it doesn't much matter to me. Except I wonder how many of these plugins are just the Emperor's new clothes.
I'm not really trying to sound like records from a previous decade anyway, or imitate anything else, so it doesn't much matter to me. Except I wonder how many of these plugins are just the Emperor's new clothes.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 22869 posts since 8 Oct, 2014
@Funkbot's Evil Twin
Fascinating read. You really know your stuff. You must also be as old as me. LOL.
So in other words, Reader's Digest Version, treat my DAW like a 4 track tape recorder and bounce, bounce, bounce, like I used to do back in the late 70s, early 80s.
I might just give that a try just for the hell of it. I mean what's the worst that can happen? It sounds like crap? I can always just undo everything as long as I keep backup projects.
Thank you. That was the most fun reading I've had in a long time.
Fascinating read. You really know your stuff. You must also be as old as me. LOL.
So in other words, Reader's Digest Version, treat my DAW like a 4 track tape recorder and bounce, bounce, bounce, like I used to do back in the late 70s, early 80s.
I might just give that a try just for the hell of it. I mean what's the worst that can happen? It sounds like crap? I can always just undo everything as long as I keep backup projects.
Thank you. That was the most fun reading I've had in a long time.
-
Funkybot's Evil Twin Funkybot's Evil Twin https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=116627
- KVRAF
- 12438 posts since 16 Aug, 2006
I'm only 36 but enjoy the classics and reading about the process. I'd definitely be curious to hear the output of that type of workflow. Give it a shot!wagtunes wrote:@Funkbot's Evil Twin
Fascinating read. You really know your stuff. You must also be as old as me. LOL.
So in other words, Reader's Digest Version, treat my DAW like a 4 track tape recorder and bounce, bounce, bounce, like I used to do back in the late 70s, early 80s.
I might just give that a try just for the hell of it. I mean what's the worst that can happen? It sounds like crap? I can always just undo everything as long as I keep backup projects.
Thank you. That was the most fun reading I've had in a long time.
Edit: Bob Olhsson (engineer at Motown) hangs out at Gearslutz, and if you read his posts and threads he particupates in, you can pick up a lot of information on this topic. The man's catalog speaks for itself and he's forgotten more than most of us will ever learn. Worth seeking out his posts IMO.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 22869 posts since 8 Oct, 2014
I'll do it on my next track. It's going to beFunkybot's Evil Twin wrote:I'm only 36 but enjoy the classics and reading about the process. I'd definitely be curious to hear the output of that type of workflow. Give it a shot!wagtunes wrote:@Funkbot's Evil Twin
Fascinating read. You really know your stuff. You must also be as old as me. LOL.
So in other words, Reader's Digest Version, treat my DAW like a 4 track tape recorder and bounce, bounce, bounce, like I used to do back in the late 70s, early 80s.
I might just give that a try just for the hell of it. I mean what's the worst that can happen? It sounds like crap? I can always just undo everything as long as I keep backup projects.
Thank you. That was the most fun reading I've had in a long time.
Drums
Bass
2 Rhythm Guitars
1 Lead Guitar
1 Lead Vocal
2 Background Vocals
That's a total of 8 channels
I'll record drums, bass and the 2 rhythm guitars as that's the foundation and mix them down to 2 channel stereo.
I'll then record the lead guitar and the background vocals and mix them in with the 2 channel mix.
Finally, I'll put the lead vocal on top.
Each point in the process there will be console and tape emulation on the output buss.
I have no clue what this is going to sound like but I'm dying to find out.
-
- KVRian
- 1102 posts since 30 Oct, 2005
I tend to think that all...and untill devs begin to provide A/B tests of their modelling plugins against original I dont care how superior their modelling aproach isfoosnark wrote:Going back to the original question: there have been plenty of plugins, demos of plugins, and presets on compressors etc. that are supposed to saturate, warm up, sound like vintage gear or whatever... and I either hear no difference, or no difference that matters, or it just sounds "different" but not better.
I'm not really trying to sound like records from a previous decade anyway, or imitate anything else, so it doesn't much matter to me. Except I wonder how many of these plugins are just the Emperor's new clothes.
-
- KVRAF
- 10128 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
Sorry, I should have made my point clearer.kvaca wrote:you talked about drums explicitly - thats why I mentioned the importance of towels...VariKusBrainZ wrote:How do you get the towel to effect guitar transientskvaca wrote:yes, but dont forget they also used towels frequently in these times - which has even much more hearable impact on sound of the drumsVariKusBrainZ wrote:Also important is tape's effect on transients, which obviously had a huge effect on drums on those old recordingscamsr wrote:Most of the charm of "tape" IMO comes from the diminished treble power. I must be getting old to enjoy hicut filters. The saturation should make up for some of that cut by distorting it and adding that density that's associated with tape.
and now you jumped to guitar transients??
Ok, these can be tamed many ways, too - if you use decent ribbon mic instead of condenser one you obtain much more "tapeish" sound than with any existing tape plugin...
btw - I dont want to underestimate the impact of real tape deck to the sound, I just dont uderstand the hype about all tape plugins which sounds in certain occasions plain wrong /and the more driven the worse/...unfortunately only people which worked with tape for longer period of time can sometimes spot it, and it doesnt matter if they hear 20kHz sound or not
One of the main effects that tape has is on transients based on its frequency response. Its not just about saturation.
Im not talking about tape as a solution to transients Im talking about what it does to a sound.
I tend to use plugins as effects rather than to solve problems, so tape, compressor, transient shapers ect plugins are used as sound design rather than gentle transparent control.
-
- KVRian
- 1102 posts since 30 Oct, 2005
can you post the results for comparison/bounced vs not bounced mixdown/?wagtunes wrote:I'll do it on my next track. It's going to beFunkybot's Evil Twin wrote:I'm only 36 but enjoy the classics and reading about the process. I'd definitely be curious to hear the output of that type of workflow. Give it a shot!wagtunes wrote:@Funkbot's Evil Twin
Fascinating read. You really know your stuff. You must also be as old as me. LOL.
So in other words, Reader's Digest Version, treat my DAW like a 4 track tape recorder and bounce, bounce, bounce, like I used to do back in the late 70s, early 80s.
I might just give that a try just for the hell of it. I mean what's the worst that can happen? It sounds like crap? I can always just undo everything as long as I keep backup projects.
Thank you. That was the most fun reading I've had in a long time.
Drums
Bass
2 Rhythm Guitars
1 Lead Guitar
1 Lead Vocal
2 Background Vocals
That's a total of 8 channels
I'll record drums, bass and the 2 rhythm guitars as that's the foundation and mix them down to 2 channel stereo.
I'll then record the lead guitar and the background vocals and mix them in with the 2 channel mix.
Finally, I'll put the lead vocal on top.
Each point in the process there will be console and tape emulation on the output buss.
I have no clue what this is going to sound like but I'm dying to find out.