VCC, VTM, Blah, Blah, Blah...What The Hell Is Wrong With Me?

[wagtunes]

I didn't bounce tracks. As it sounds now, I was afraid bouncing would turn this into pure noise so I left it as it was. I think the overall sound is what I was going for.

One thing you can try is to look for resonances in your mix. For example there is a pretty overt one at around 3.5k. if you use an EQ centred around 3.5k with a medium-narrow q and boost you will hear it. then you can cut it to taste. I think there are a few loud resonances you could cut to make space for everything else in the mix.

Of course it would be better to do this in the mix and find the offending tracks but that takes more time.

Here's a technique I use: use an EQ such as Pro-Q2 that is visual, create one band that is very narrow and boost it. then slide it along the freq spectrum from low to high and listen for places where its obviously much louder. it helps if you can solo the band. make a note of where these points are because they are likely resonances that are consuming dynamic range. then place a narrow curve at each point and cut and q to taste.

I am familiar with the process. I'm going to go back through the tracks and see what I can do.

[wagtunes]

I didn't bounce tracks. As it sounds now, I was afraid bouncing would turn this into pure noise so I left it as it was. I think the overall sound is what I was going for.

One thing you can try is to look for resonances in your mix. For example there is a pretty overt one at around 3.5k. if you use an EQ centred around 3.5k with a medium-narrow q and boost you will hear it. then you can cut it to taste. I think there are a few loud resonances you could cut to make space for everything else in the mix.

Of course it would be better to do this in the mix and find the offending tracks but that takes more time.

Here's a technique I use: use an EQ such as Pro-Q2 that is visual, create one band that is very narrow and boost it. then slide it along the freq spectrum from low to high and listen for places where its obviously much louder. it helps if you can solo the band. make a note of where these points are because they are likely resonances that are consuming dynamic range. then place a narrow curve at each point and cut and q to taste.

Okay, I completely remixed it. Took the EQ on each track and on the master and hacked away at all the bad spots. I also added a multi band compressor on the master buss to try to glue this together a little better. I did not touch any of the channel strip or tape emulation settings however, so it's still driven pretty hard.

Tell me if it's an improvement at all.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim ... -on-backup

[DuX]

I think your approach is too modern from the get go. Use one nice reverb on send and no multiband compressors... they didn't have those at the time. Use some LA2A or Urei 1176 emulations for compression.

[wagtunes]

I think your approach is too modern from the get go. Use one nice reverb on send and no multiband compressors... they didn't have those at the time. Use some LA2A or Urei 1176 emulations for compression.

Well, I don't own them so those are not options.

But thanks for the suggestions.

[elassi]

I'd try, just because of curiosity, no reverb at all but to record the output of your speakers with a mic. Probably track by track. Should sound "lo-fi", too.

[wagtunes]

I'd try, just because of curiosity, no reverb at all but to record the output of your speakers with a mic. Probably track by track. Should sound "lo-fi", too.

Thanks, but that's just way too much work.

[Neon Breath]

Hey!

The image on my 55" 1080p LED TV doesn't look as old school and grainy as my old uncle 60's b&w tube TV. Why is that?

[kmonkey]

Hey!

The image on my 55" 1080p LED TV doesn't look as old school and grainy as my old uncle 60's b&w tube TV. Why is that?

Turn off image processor

[DuX]

I think Neon Breath actually has a really good point... when you think about it.

I use VLC for playing films on my LCD and there are options to make the picture look more analogue, but it looks nowhere near what it would look like on a real thing.

[experimental.crow]

you may want to watch the 2004 documentary film ' DIG! ' ,
about the relationship between the Dandy Warhols ,
and The Brian Jonestown Massacre ...

you may not care for the people , or the story for that matter ,
but i think they had a great handle on the feel , and the sound ...

[Chris Ramey]

I'd try, just because of curiosity, no reverb at all but to record the output of your speakers with a mic. Probably track by track. Should sound "lo-fi", too.

Thanks, but that's just way too much work.

Recording "back in the day" was way too much work as well, compared to today. Perhaps that's a big part of the sound; the level of dedication those people had, working with tape, noise, temperamental machinery, and with no internet to answer even their most basic questions, is probably unmatched. There aren't any shortcuts or magic pixie dust that will emulate that intense level of dedication toward ones' craft, and willingness to get stuff wrong in order to find what works and what doesn't.

As for quantization: "I've been imitated so well I've heard people copy my mistakes." -Jimi Hendrix.

If you quantize Jimi's sloppy wailing, it won't sound anything like Jimi anymore. Mistakes make the music sound more "live" and "human." Back in the day, there was no quantization, only practice (and compromise).

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but no amount of plugins will make your stuff sound "vintage." It's a mindset. It's moving air in a studio. It's clever workarounds to limitations. It's an attitude, not a technology.

Check out someone like Dungen (or maybe Tame Impala's first record) for some insight into how modern hardware can be made to sound rough and old. There's slop. There's experimentation. There's curiosity. The vintage sound comes from the instrumentation and the writing, in my opinion.

[wagtunes]

I'd try, just because of curiosity, no reverb at all but to record the output of your speakers with a mic. Probably track by track. Should sound "lo-fi", too.

Thanks, but that's just way too much work.

Recording "back in the day" was way too much work as well, compared to today. Perhaps that's a big part of the sound; the level of dedication those people had, working with tape, noise, temperamental machinery, and with no internet to answer even their most basic questions, is probably unmatched. There aren't any shortcuts or magic pixie dust that will emulate that intense level of dedication toward ones' craft, and willingness to get stuff wrong in order to find what works and what doesn't.

As for quantization: "I've been imitated so well I've heard people copy my mistakes." -Jimi Hendrix.

If you quantize Jimi's sloppy wailing, it won't sound anything like Jimi anymore. Mistakes make the music sound more "live" and "human." Back in the day, there was no quantization, only practice (and compromise).

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but no amount of plugins will make your stuff sound "vintage." It's a mindset. It's moving air in a studio. It's clever workarounds to limitations. It's an attitude, not a technology.

While I have no evidence to contradict what you're saying, attitude is as much pixie dust as anything else because attitude doesn't have a sound. The only thing that has a sound is machinery, instruments, tools, etc. When I used to have analog equipment, I may not have had Jimi Hendrix attitude or George Martin's production chops, but it still sounded like it was recorded on a tape recorder, for good or bad.

So unless digital equipment is simply not capable of reproducing the sound that came out of tubes and whatever, attitude is irrelevant.

Sound is sound.

[plexuss]

This might be useful: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much ... sound.html

There's this:

And this for reference tracks:

Good luck!

[Googly Smythe]

Does anyone remember what this thread was originally about?
People trying to get subtlety across using YouTube, with no discernable difference when AB-ing.
Solution: whack up the input/drive dial.

[Chris Ramey]

I'd try, just because of curiosity, no reverb at all but to record the output of your speakers with a mic. Probably track by track. Should sound "lo-fi", too.

Thanks, but that's just way too much work.

Recording "back in the day" was way too much work as well, compared to today. Perhaps that's a big part of the sound; the level of dedication those people had, working with tape, noise, temperamental machinery, and with no internet to answer even their most basic questions, is probably unmatched. There aren't any shortcuts or magic pixie dust that will emulate that intense level of dedication toward ones' craft, and willingness to get stuff wrong in order to find what works and what doesn't.

As for quantization: "I've been imitated so well I've heard people copy my mistakes." -Jimi Hendrix.

If you quantize Jimi's sloppy wailing, it won't sound anything like Jimi anymore. Mistakes make the music sound more "live" and "human." Back in the day, there was no quantization, only practice (and compromise).

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but no amount of plugins will make your stuff sound "vintage." It's a mindset. It's moving air in a studio. It's clever workarounds to limitations. It's an attitude, not a technology.

While I have no evidence to contradict what you're saying, attitude is as much pixie dust as anything else because attitude doesn't have a sound. The only thing that has a sound is machinery, instruments, tools, etc. When I used to have analog equipment, I may not have had Jimi Hendrix attitude or George Martin's production chops, but it still sounded like it was recorded on a tape recorder, for good or bad.

So unless digital equipment is simply not capable of reproducing the sound that came out of tubes and whatever, attitude is irrelevant.

Sound is sound.

So bounce each track to a tape recorder, then back to the DAW. Someone suggested something similar earlier, recording the output through your speakers, and you said that's too much work.

It's like the vocals on your tracks. If you are okay with a digital recreation of a human voice, that's fine. If you are okay with a digital recreation of analog sound, that's fine. But the only way you're going to "get reel" is if you actually put your sound through tape, just like the only way to get a real human voice is to record a singer. Otherwise, it's just a digital emulation.

My point is, you either have to go through the paces and recreate an analog signal path, which takes what some might deem too much work, or you can decide that the fake analog sound is good enough and be happy. I feel like our current tech allows for tape/tube emulation that's about as good as the way a virtual piano emulates the real thing. We're close enough to the point that if you are enough of a purist to want the actual real thing (and to know why that is, beyond simple retro-spectacles and your brain chemistry fooling you into thinking that the "good old days" were in fact good), you will opt to use the actual real thing, even if it means extra work.

There's no magical algorithm that's just gonna turn your static drum samples into a Glyn Johns drum mix.