I hate modern mastering and production techniques

[Ferryman]

I'm in the process of mixing and mastering a new track. I've got some very clever mastering software called Ozone. It uses AI to analyse any music and give you ideas on how to EQ and master it. You can feed it audio files and it analyses those (it also has "standard" algorithms). I thought great, I'll take some CDs of the music genres I like and feed them into the beast to help me.

Doing this made something really obvious to me. Modern production techniques suck big time. I listened to a bunch of CDs on my studio monitors with my hearing aids in (which give me pretty close to perfect hearing across all frequencies). Boy, do most CDs produced in the past 10 to 20 years sound harsh, tinny and over-compressed compared to stuff produced in the 70s on "proper" analogue gear.

I was well aware of the loudness wars, but it's only when I really sat down and listened to stuff closely that I realised how bad things have gotten. The lack of dynamic range and "air" in the mix is really obvious. Back to the 70s for me.........

What do you all think?

EDIT: I was mixing this track and according to the "Modern" algorithm, it was a bit out in several places. I fed the AI mp3s of one of my favourite albums (in production terms) from the 70s and it was much closer. Clearly my brain is stuck in the 70s, maybe because those were my formative years.

[Flash Harry]

Good question.

I have been doing some of my own unscientific research too. Much of what I see is slammed into a clipper and compressed to buggery and back. If you look at the waveform in Audacity or reaper for example the peaks are constantly at just below 0dB and there are few periods where the overall levels change.

I have tried a few mastering tools though I've never considered paying for a copy of Ozone, seems a lot of cash for an amateur enthusiast. I have used some of the Akai multiband compressors and I even bought an outboard multiband compressor to try (I did try this to add punch to live performances buy all that happened was that the kick drum caused everything else to duck and I never had the time at a live gig to tweak and play around with the configs.. I digress).

It's true that compression adds punch and weight to a track  - I have done this and it provides the Geir ideal of everything being louder than everything else, but you lose the stuff of the instrument, particularly the timbre of acoustic guitars.

Lately, I have been compressing the overall track less and compressing individual tracks such as bass and individual drums more and it seems to be working. The dynamics in the important bits, the acoustics and vocals are better and the mastering is a bit of EQ and a soft limiter with a clip just on 0dB.

Which poses a challenge for mixing now. How to get things nicely mixed with levels just right so the limiter is just hit on the really high levels but the naturjal levels hover around -1 to -3dB.

I read that kick drum and bass mixed to give a balance sound somewhere around -10dB was a good strating point for a mix. I used this technique and it can produce a fairly good sound - it will need a tweak here and there but avoid the temptation to turn everything up, you can turn down as well and then bring the overall levle up to compensate. Keep an eye on the mail channel levels and add in the mastering EQ and bit of light compression at the end of mixing.

I like to have a sound level of about 85dB (use a smarphone and an app) when I'm mixing on monitors, I usually use headphones for detailed stereo placement listening only.

Anyway, that was  bit of a ramble.       

[alfstone]

My opinion? Just trust your ears.

And I think that the best way to understand if a mix is good or not, is to listen the audio file in the car stereo.

Alfredo

[Greeny]

I was listening to a Donovan album recorded in mono on vinyl yesterday - it sounded great to me. None of this compressed, characterless shit.

I totally agree with you. I enjoy the convenience of having Abbey Road in my pocket, but I wish I could make it sound like Dark Side of the Moon's analogue loveliness.

I guess I always strive for a vintage sound, because that's the music I love.

It's a big subject, isn't it! But just do what YOU want.

[Ferryman]

Good thoughts. Mike, I'll try that trick starting with bass drum and kick (except for me it's always a full kit, but I always try to match the bass with the kick) at -10dB.

I guess things did sound better in the old days. As a bass player, I really notice it, because on most tracks these days the bass is hardly present at all. When I listen to the Beatles, Faces/Small Faces, Who, Yes, Floyd et al the bass is distinct in the mix and contributes to the musicality of the song. Same with Motown classics as well.

Oh well. I'll try to trust my broken ears   

[Mike_S]

i do agree a lot of the older stuff does sound sonically purer, more honest I think. As the years went by the tendency was to produce music to within a inch of its life.

This ties in to how I have been thinking recently about how recorded music sounds. Apart from the production/mixing side I think another side that has been lost through the years is a little bit of spontaneity and freshness in the musicians performances. Again I think when you compare modern recordings to older ones (eg a lot of seventies stuff?) I get the feeling they are rehearsed to death, note for note, so there is barely any personality left. When you add to that the over production you can end up with pretty lifeless stuff. But it seems that's what people want these days!

Mike

[Ferryman]

Good points Mike. It's not so much that music is rehearsed to death IMO, it's more that Pro Tools, autotune, click tracks and every other tool available to "fix" problems these days mean that music all sounds very similar and "perfect". Rick Beato has an interesting take on it here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-8EbHkc8tc   

[Flash Harry]

Rick Beato has some interesting stuff to say on compression too - I was listening to this last night, mentions the Beatles, Floyd and others, compression has been around for a long time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oOmX3JHwtE

In the analog world the attack times were relient upon fast electronics, in the digital world, the compressors have time to look forward and beat the audio.

Back in the day, I worked with systems that delayed video and audio in a consistent manner to allow for this 'look forward' aspect to work in an as-live way, which then added in it's own temporal challenges. Slamming everything into a fast clipper produced nasty sounding audio, like Radio 1 in the 1980's. Look-forward allows you to put intelegence into compression and the digital version of slamming everything into a clipper (but modifying the attributes of the clipper as you do so) produced a consistently everything-louder-than-everything-else sort of  sound and not quite as nasty.

Going back to this analog method of compressing on the way in seems to be bearing fruit for me. There are somre free VSTs for some clones of the compressors he mentions.

[Ferryman]

Interesting, I will listen to that later. Rick is a very interesting guy.

I use Ozone for mastering and it offers the choice between "modern" tools and "vintage" tools (eq, compressor, maximizer etc). I used the "vintage" option on my last track and was very pleased with the result (I also used a 70s track to help me with eq through the "tonal balance" capability). I'll take a detailed look at the vintage compressor and see how that works.....

[Mike_S]

Good points Mike. It's not so much that music is rehearsed to death IMO, it's more that Pro Tools, autotune, click tracks and every other tool available to "fix" problems these days mean that music all sounds very similar and "perfect". Rick Beato has an interesting take on it here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-8EbHkc8tc

Yes I have watched a few of ricks videos before. He makes a lot of good points and is pretty passionate about the older school production methods. He seems to agree those little imperfections were what gave some of the older stuff their magic and I totally agree - we can relate more when there is a human side to the recordings.