I've always thought "remastering" analog recordings to digital was a great idea, in principle, remixing the tracks to a digital master that doesn't add another layer of noise or muddy the high frequencies the way mastering to tape will tend to do. The problem is that most old recordings that go through digital "remastering" ALSO end up being subjected to all the brutal abuse and overuse of compression so common in today's music scene.
When I saw this multitrack, transferred from a studio recording made in 1975 (I was three years old ) I just JUMPED at the chance to do it, to showcase what the goal of "remastering" of old classics SHOULD be: to get the cleanest, clearest possible version of the ORIGINAL RECORDING AS IT WAS INTENDED BY THE ARTIST.
With that in mind, I cleaned up the noise on the tracks one track at a time then completed a mix with only a degree of compression and processing that would've been standard practice back when this was originally recorded. And of course, as usual, aside from normalizing the final mixdown to 0 dBFS, I applied NO processing WHATSOEVER to "master" it.
What do you guys think?
I'll be making comments on other people's mixes of this tomorrow; right now I gotta get to bed.
Hi PP, (have you ever raced? sorry the question is off topic!)
Anyone who grinds their way through material cleaning it up gets my fullest respect! I also appreciated the dynamic range you have going here. Your LCR panning strategy made me smile too.
You chose to keep the mix dark which makes it emotionally dull and lifeless in it's delivery. I'd have personally preferred more use of the frequency spectrum while of course, still respecting the low and high-end roll off found in vinyl production. Because the instruments were darker, I'm struggling with clarity (which leads to listening fatigue), especially the Hammond, which from my own experiences was a terribly difficult animal to bring out because of it's inherent desire to clash frequencies with the lead guitars. The sibilance on the vocal might cause the pressing plant some issues ;) I struggled to control the sibilance...the minute I did anything in the process, it would insist on coming back again. Difficult.
I had no sense of space here, not that a replicated LCR mixing desk will do much in that regard, but the mix is as dry as a bone. Can I ask why you chose not to use reverb in your strategy?
I can really hear the hard work you've done on the preparation; full respect.
(09-01-2014, 07:20 AM)thedon Wrote: I love listening to records and this mix sounds like listening to a record !
Very nice :D
Hi Don,
On the basis that anything can be improved, and given that we are all here to learn and further our skills-development(?), what do you think could be done to help make this a brilliant mix? Cheers, BigDave.
(09-01-2014, 10:43 AM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: Hi PP, (have you ever raced? sorry the question is off topic!)
I participated in a recreational time trial once but otherwise, while I'm pretty fast in downtown traffic, I don't really "race," no. If you're interested in racing, however, you might want to check out this video I did a few years ago:
(09-01-2014, 10:43 AM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: Anyone who grinds their way through material cleaning it up gets my fullest respect!
Well, I find it's the only way to clean up noisy recordings; when you try to remove it from the full mixdown it creates "pumping" effects in the noise that are very distracting.
I've never been one to shy away from hard work, particularly when the payoff is so great.
(09-01-2014, 10:43 AM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: You chose to keep the mix dark which makes it emotionally dull and lifeless in it's delivery. I'd have personally preferred more use of the frequency spectrum while of course, still respecting the low and high-end roll off found in vinyl production. Because the instruments were darker, I'm struggling with clarity (which leads to listening fatigue), especially the Hammond, which from my own experiences was a terribly difficult animal to bring out because of it's inherent desire to clash frequencies with the lead guitars. The sibilance on the vocal might cause the pressing plant some issues I struggled to control the sibilance...the minute I did anything in the process, it would insist on coming back again. Difficult.
Unfortunately, this is one of the mix projects which I discarded in a recent space purge (I don't have a lot of space to spare on my computer) so I won't be able to implement your suggestions I'm afraid. I will say, however, that the mix came out slightly darker when converted to AAC for some reason; it sounds a little brighter in uncompressed form.
For the record I wasn't looking to recreate the sound of vinyl; I was actually looking to clean up the recording and make use of its full studio quality. Problem is I found the tracks themselves lacked much content in the high end, probably owning to the limitations of magnetic recording. I did apply a lot more EQ to the drum tracks than I usually do with modern projects trying to bring out the cymbals and sharpen up the snare but I was reluctant to push it too far; it's easy to get carried away with EQ and end up with a sharp, brassy mess.
(09-01-2014, 10:43 AM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: I had no sense of space here, not that a replicated LCR mixing desk will do much in that regard, but the mix is as dry as a bone. Can I ask why you chose not to use reverb in your strategy?
Actually, there is reverb but it's very subtle. I tend to prefer a drier sound and usually use reverb almost subliminally to add presence. Though subtle, though, I chose a style of reverb more in keeping with the 70s feel.
In retrospect, maybe I should've dialed it up just a notch? If I ever revisit this mix I'll be sure to keep these suggestions in mind.
Do you have any specific suggestions how I might tease out a little more high frequency content without pushing it too far?
(09-01-2014, 11:14 AM)Pedaling Prince Wrote: I was actually looking to clean up the recording and make use of its full studio quality. Problem is I found the tracks themselves lacked much content in the high end, probably owning to the limitations of magnetic recording.
Do you have any specific suggestions how I might tease out a little more high frequency content without pushing it too far?
hi John, many thanks for the reply and clarification, and indeed also for the bike link which brought back a flood of excellent memories!
i have difficulty, i must admit, with the original samples. the lack of any high frequency material makes me suspect they were severely degraded prior to transcribing to digital, and most certainly are not of their original recorded quality. even at 7IPS (not a studio-quality speed!!), there should be more than sufficient spectral balance here, with content up to the 16kHz range. the fact there's nothing much above 4kHz suggests to me the tape has degraded over time for whatever reasons - the distortions evident in some of the material would support this too. so, basically you/we are not working with the "full studio quality recordings" as perhaps perceived, but ones that are sonically degraded with the resultant hugely unnatural spectral frequency imbalances.
so, on that basis, mixing this material without trying to gain back the harmonics while addressing the spectral imbalances, is pretty much a lost cause i'd say; it's not mixing as i'd define it, nor has it any reference to mastering? most people here have failed to understand the material before them and have obliviously gone ahead mixing what they think is traditionally recorded audio or the era. it's not, sadly. and this means what they've produced is not even close to what it should be sonically because of the lack of harmonics and the implications this has on tonality and delivery. i'd courteously suggest that any feedback given should take this into account if it's going to be valid, informative or even educational.
my mix, when compared to yours, appears much, much brighter. if you switch from yours to mine it's a bit of a shock. however, if you give the brain a chance to adjust, within a short space of time it will sound quite fine. there's psycho-acoustic reasons why this is so, but that's beyond this scope.
regarding EQ, i'd say that it's the instrument, the quality of the recording, and what else is going on around it which will dictate my action. however, given the crippled samples here(!), sometimes there needs to be a brutal approach, of the sort that might give you nightmares. for example, in order for me to get rid of the disgusting boom and flab on the bass guitar (no bass guitar in any genre or era has ever sounded as bad as this), i hit it with distortion. this caused wonderful harmonics which i could then shape with EQ to achieve my vision of how i wanted it to sound in the mix [after considering everything else instrumentally in this equation too].
note the low end of the lead guitars which is especially coloured also and rather boomy as a consequence, owing to the frequency imbalances? i'd suggest if any of the original musicians heard what we are hearing, they'd be less than amused, and rightly so.
reverb, to me, is about the creation of space around the instrument, so i can imagine where it is relative to me and all the other musicians in the performance to such an extent that i can envision the size of the room in terms of width, depth and height (and it's construction materials!!) and where the instrument is relative to it. every instrument demands it's own individual specific application of ambiance of some sort because of it's specific location in the overall space - this needs to be communicated to your audience or confusion reigns. our brains understand space on a subconscious level, and anything that sounds unnatural or confusing will get its attention. in a mix, we don't want our audience to be distracted from the actual song, so critical vigilance needs to be exercised on the specific selection of artificial ambiance. reverb can also be used for EQ purposes, so too compression.
incidentally, if i feel an instrument will benefit from a 15dB gain shelving filter at 2.5kHz, i wont think it's out of hand if the outcome suits my vision for the mix. numbers aren't important, it's all about creating emotion and nobody will give a monkeys how you did it.
thanks for taking the time in giving me feedback, by the way! appreciated. but you will perhaps understand why my mix is brighter and has a more generous spectral range given the scenario?
hope this helps, hit me back if you think i can be of help, you are more than welcome ;)
You really cleaned the tracks up, huh? I'm really impressed, this is a CLEAN restoration if I've ever heard one. Good job .
On the topic of brightness/darkness (I went for a brighter mix, myself, but your vision is nice on the ears, too) I have a few simple suggestions you could try if you still have the project file... if not, there's still a lot of good conservation to be held on the topic, maybe? And I'd appreciate hearing your views on my suggestions whether or not you'd want to try them I think the overall brightness of the mix could be enhanced really just by brightening up a few tracks that are a smidge over-dark for my taste... mainly the organ and the vocals. I dunno how many of my mixes you've listened to but if it's been more than a couple you've probably noticed I maybe overuse parallel distortion for mix brightening, but an overdriven hammond sounds SO GOOD to me.. if your goal is to tease out a bit more in the upper ranges, P.D. on the organ bus highpass filtered up into the 1 khz range would help. And for the vocal, to my ears it just sounds like it wants a somewhat liberal low shelving cut in the low mids... volume match and it's probably a hot ticket. A similar but slightly more conservative strategy might liven up the guitars a bit, too, if you like the other parts where they are but want some more air. I actually used a low mid cut and top end shelving boost like HB suggested and liked the result a lot.
I'm a bit of a reverb-head so for aesthetic reasons I think more wetness would be good, but I liked it more for creating high end enhancement and enhancing the already pleasant room sound on the recordings than for any real artistic purpose.
Great job, john!
I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!
I think this mix is pretty good and the work that went into resurrecting the materiel is considerable as well. I would say that while the mix is sound and well balanced ,the lack of high end makes it sound/feel very dull to me. I'd recommend pushing the top-end in pretty much everything a bit more to get some life back into the mix.
) I just JUMPED at the chance to do it, to showcase what the goal of "remastering" of old classics SHOULD be: to get the cleanest, clearest possible version of the ORIGINAL RECORDING AS IT WAS INTENDED BY THE ARTIST.
I think the overall brightness of the mix could be enhanced really just by brightening up a few tracks that are a smidge over-dark for my taste... mainly the organ and the vocals. I dunno how many of my mixes you've listened to but if it's been more than a couple you've probably noticed I maybe overuse parallel distortion for mix brightening, but an overdriven hammond sounds SO GOOD to me.. if your goal is to tease out a bit more in the upper ranges, P.D. on the organ bus highpass filtered up into the 1 khz range would help. And for the vocal, to my ears it just sounds like it wants a somewhat liberal low shelving cut in the low mids... volume match and it's probably a hot ticket. A similar but slightly more conservative strategy might liven up the guitars a bit, too, if you like the other parts where they are but want some more air. I actually used a low mid cut and top end shelving boost like HB suggested and liked the result a lot.