Authentic 80s mastering sound - achieved today

[heavenorlasvegas]

Hi sos!

I have been working on an authentic 80s sounding project for many years and am still looking for answers on how to complete it.

I believe all of my tracking techniques are good (instruments, performances etc) and all of my effects, and outboard gear (mixing stage) is good as well.

What I really believe to be the missing piece of the puzzle for my project is the mastering stage.

When I search for major label releases that were released in the 80s, most all of them have a less than perfect, some might call it “crappy” or “harsh” sounding quality to them, but it gives the recording a sense of cohesion, and I quite like the sound.

So here is my question for you experienced mastering engineers: how would you go about achieving this sound using a daw today? What steps, and what gear would you use?

Thanks again sos, you all are excellent as always.

[sonics]

So have you done your reading about the people, processes and gear in use at the time? What did you discover?

[tea for two]

Did you discover Sonics was producer on a number of 80s records.
Although there's no easy way to know which from the thousands records released in the 80s that became hits.

[heavenorlasvegas]

So have you done your reading about the people, processes and gear in use at the time? What did you discover?

I have. It turns out there’s not a lot of direct information available in regards to it.

I was hoping to hear from a few who have direct experience mastering major label releases from that era, and what they think might be contributing to the sound.

I’ve read that possibly the ad/da conversion has a lot to do with it. A pcm 1630? Has been mentioned on a few online forums.

Thanks again sir!

[BJG145]

*** warning - you are now entering the vintage digital rabbit hole ***

[forumuser840717]

I’ve read that possibly the ad/da conversion has a lot to do with it. A pcm 1630? Has been mentioned on a few online forums.

Depends where you were mastering and with whom.

PCM1630 didn't come out until 1985 and it took a year or two to spread. Prior to that, the digital master recorder processor was a PCM1610 (released 1980 but allow a bit of time for it to spread) and, a year or two before that, the PCM1600. Moving on a little, Apogee came out with some alternative converter/filter boards for the PCM1630, which sounded quite different from the originals and, by the late 1980s the PCM1630 had developed to include an optional AES/EBU digital i/o board which bypassed the internal converters to allow external converters to be interfaced to it and some places used their PCM1630s with converters from the likes of dCS, Prism, Apogee, and others.

There were other digital formats before and alongside that for several years (earlier Sony processors and other systems from the likes of JVC, Panasonic, Hitachi, Sharp, and a few others which were mostly around in Japan and had limited to no intercompatibility and a particulrly nice (and expensive one made by Nakamichi which found some use also in the Us and UK). In the US, 3M made a system and there was also a proprietary system designed and used by Soundstream in the mid 1970s which sounded particuarly good - the fully evolved version a few years later was running 4 channels of 16 bit 50kHz when most of the competition was struggling to manage stereo 14bit 44.1kHz. Elsewhere, in Europe, some record companies developed in-house systems such as that used by Decca which used 20bit A-d and 18 bit D-A converters, recording to IVC-800, 1" open reel video transports.

Despite all the competing formats, by the 1980s, Sony pretty much had a strangle-hold on commercial CD mastering and interchange that carried through into the mid-late 1990s with the PCM16xx series processors and companion U-Matic (3/4" video tape cassette) based recorders (various models - as the processors progressed, so did the video machines), digital editors (DAE-1100 then DAE-3000 (There was to be a DAE-5000, seen in prototype form over a few years in the mid-late 1990s, intended to join the new PCM-9000 MO-Disc recorder as the replacement for the tape-based PCM-16xx/U-Matic recorders as the new Pro CD mastering format but it never actually came out. The PCM-9000 never took off as, by then, CD plants were accepting DDP masters on Exabyte tapes, which could be written and verified at high speed from DAWs and, lower down the scale, CD-R, even R-DAT masters, and nobody really wanted a comparatively expensive MO-Disc format which was proprietary to Sony, so their domination of the CD mastering market came to an end. Which was a little bit of a shame as, for all it's ...er... foibles, the PCM-9000 sounded great on it's internal converters and was quite nice to use - give or take a few seriously disturbing flaws in the early versions!)

(There was also a PCM100 which was a big, heavy, box along the lines of a PCM1600 but I'm not sure where it sat in the timeline as I only ever saw one of those, at Polygram in the Netherlands. I never used it but the engineers who did seemed to like it and said it did the job.)

Some mastering companies, particularly early in the 1980s (and before), saved money by using the sony domestic PCM processors (PCM-1 (domestic PCM1600), PCM-F1 ("Portable" version), and the PCM701ES, PCM501ES and, finally the PCM601ES, which were all hi-fi processors aimed at various price levels of the consumer market. Audio + Design did some modified versions of the PCM701ES, aimed at making it more useful to the pro mastering market, adding balanced analogue connections and two (maybe more) optional upgrade levels to add the kinds of interfacing and control connections used on the full sized PCM1600 series units, like error rate displays, SDif-II interfacing, some subcode flag controls, and, on the fabled Level 2 mod, a port to attach a Sony DTA-2000 tape verifier to check the integrity of the master tape data. (They also made a mod which used two PCM701ES processors, joined together to make a 4-track recorder.)

Digital formats aside, the kinds of kit found in mastering houses varied from place to place and engineer to engineer but, even ignoring the personal styles of specific engineers, there were some house styles which developed and led to some people/places specialising in specific genres, and geographical generalities in choices of processing, operational practices, and facility design which varied around the world.

So it's probably a good idea, if wanting to get a specific style of mastered sound, to identify whose sound one likes or, failing that, pin down where and when the favoured masters originate because there's quite a big variation in how they were done. As much as there is in how they'd have been recorded in the studio.

[James Perrett]

While you've had the lowdown on 80s digital technology, it is worth remembering that an awful lot of 80s hits went nowhere near digital recorders.

[forumuser840717]

*** warning - you are now entering the vintage digital rabbit hole ***

That's the DMR-4000 Digital Master Recorder - the last and greatest of the U-Matic based recorders/transports for the PCM-16xx (particularly the 1630). When used with a 1630 (but only a 1630 fitted with the appropriate option board), it did a useful trick which none of the other U-Mats did in that it had a Read After Write function which allowed masters to be verified as they were recorded, saving the extra real-time playback/verification step reqiuired in the mastering process if one used any other U-Matic recorder to make the master.* (It also had other useful features, including an internal LTC generator (like the DMR-2000) which saved extra outboard boxes. However, it was hideously expensive to buy (and maintain), weighed a ton, and most people had to make do with the DMR-2000 or one of the earlier machines.

*It also meant that if one used it for on-location classical recording sessions, and ran a verifier (DTA-2000 Digital Tape Analyser) as it recorded, there was a good, real-time, indication whether your recording had dropped out, without having to re-wind and play it back! Which is how I know all too well how heavy the flippin' thing was!

[heavenorlasvegas]

*** warning - you are now entering the vintage digital rabbit hole ***

Hi bjg, thanks for this image.

Do you have any tips or techniques on how to achieve this mastering sound?

Thanks greatly.

[forumuser840717]

While you've had the lowdown on 80s digital technology, it is worth remembering that an awful lot of 80s hits went nowhere near digital recorders.

James is dead right! In the 1980s, apart from stereo master recorders and stereo digital editors (hardware and tape based), there was comparatively little digital processing available which offered digital audio interfacing so the vast majority of mastering processing was analogue. What processing there was, was expensive (as were all the PCM16xx system and the associated hardware recorders, verifiers, editors, etc.) so it was only common in the higher end mastering houses.

Sony did some digital i/o capable delay processors and a basic EQ but later on a few more comprehensive systems did exist. Early digital processors and mastering systems like the Harmonia Mundi Acustica BW-102 Digital Audio Processor (a fore-runner of the Weiss Digital kit) and the later Sony SDP-1000, both of which could interface directly to the PCM16xx and their editors, could do things like levelling/mixing, EQ, delay, dynamics, dithering, and other processing/data manipulation tricks, and offered some level of automation but they were eye-wateringly expensive and pretty rare!

And, even now, many (most?) mastering engineers prefer to use analogue kit for some or even all of their processing chain rather than just fiddling around on a computer screen.

[heavenorlasvegas]

this is interesting, Thanks james and the user above for bringing to my attention that alot of hits from that decade were done in analog fashion.

Here are 3 song references:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxSsol3Zd7k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jCuroTbqBI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf0_Be5PPPU

These three recordings are all unique in that they were recorded on different consoles, produced differently, instrumentation was performed differently etc... not to mention mixed differently...

But they all share a very similar sonic characteristic.

[BJG145]

Good call. Love the Thompson Twins.

[James Perrett]

Those are probably a bit too early to be digital recordings although they feature digital samples and synths. I'd guess that they are probably mixed to 30ips tape which was a very prevalent mixdown format in that era. I'd also guess that you are really talking about production aesthetics rather than gear here. I've done some 80's remixes using mainly Reaper's standard effects (though I did use a Dimension D recreation in some places). I just used them in the same way that I would have used analogue effects.

[Arpangel]

I think this 80’s "sound" technically, is a bit of a myth, there were some fabulous recordings done back then, from a sonic point of view, but I also think it was time when certain people were struggling with digital and the results were awful, Peter Gabriel’s "So" comes to mind.

[MarkOne]

I think this 80’s "sound" technically, is a bit of a myth, there were some fabulous recordings done back then, from a sonic point of view, but I also think it was time when certain people were struggling with digital and the results were awful, Peter Gabriel’s "So" comes to mind.

One man’s awful…

I’ve always thought of the production on that as rather good.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Me too!

For me, the 80s championed excessive (digital) reverb, and an overemphasised high-end. Most pop releases were bright and many were quite hard-sounding too.

In the early 80s, most stuff went through at least one stage of digitising to be released as a CD, but many pro A-D converters weren't that great.

Also, Pre-emphasis was used quite a lot (to try and mask the converter issues) often resulting in unintended clipping and aliasing of cymbals and snare drums

Dither wasn't always used (correctly), and converters of the age typically had poor low-level linearity and some pronounced HF ripples. By the mid 80s the high-end manufacturers had made big steps forward in converter quality, and a decade later everyone had decent converters.

[MOF]

There was the use/overuse of Aphex aural exciter, BBE sonic maximiser, the decode only side of Dolby A as well.
Also the mid and top were often boosted to cut through on the radio, especially the ‘single’ mix.
“So” still sounds fantastic to my ears, lovely bass end too. Lexicon and AMS reverbs used tastefully on that album.

[The Red Bladder]

While you've had the lowdown on 80s digital technology, it is worth remembering that an awful lot of 80s hits went nowhere near digital recorders.

This!

Back in the 80s, digital audio was in its infancy and did not sound good at all! Most of us stayed analogue - 24-trk, 2" to 1/4" or 1/2". That was the master and that is what we sent to the lab.

Today I get 'that' sound with a bit of compression here and there, using iZotope (and other) mastering tools. I might run the whole thing through an analogue desk and put some compression and EQ on some tracks - depends on the material.

[Stratman57]

On the Produce like a pro YouTube channel there's a very interesting piece about Peter Gabriel. It's a bit long but you could skip through to the part where he's discussing how So was recorded, and what gear they used.

Regards, Simon.

[Tim Gillett]

...When I search for major label releases that were released in the 80s, most all of them have a less than perfect, some might call it “crappy” or “harsh” sounding quality to them, but it gives the recording a sense of cohesion, and I quite like the sound...

A context or reference really helps. Why not link to other recordings which in your view only differ in not having the "crappy", "harsh" sound you are talking about. Otherwise we tend to struggle to know exactly what you are pointing to and are left trying to guess it. Discussions about audio so often go this way.

[Arpangel]

Me too!

For me, the 80s championed excessive (digital) reverb, and an overemphasised high-end. Most pop releases were bright and many were quite hard-sounding too.

In the early 80s, most stuff went through at least one stage of digitising to be released as a CD, but many pro A-D converters weren't that great.

Also, Pre-emphasis was used quite a lot (to try and mask the converter issues) often resulting in unintended clipping and aliasing of cymbals and snare drums

Dither wasn't always used (correctly), and converters of the age typically had poor low-level linearity and some pronounced HF ripples. By the mid 80s the high-end manufacturers had made big steps forward in converter quality, and a decade later everyone had decent converters.

The Lexicon 224 changed everything, I didn’t know I was hearing it on records I was buying at the time, but the sounds were exactly what I’d been looking for on my own music, and on those records I admired at the time, but that was the late 70’s, not the 80’s.
Digital I think was far more acceptable on classical records, and an instant 200% improvement, the classical fraternity adopted it straight away, and there’s still no competition as far as I’m concerned, there’s no way I’d ever want to go back to analogue when recording classical music, but my opinions differ when it comes to other types of music, but I think it’s because Rock Pop Jazz etc, has a lot of things in it that can emphasise digital artefacts, not so much now as equipment has improved, but drums, cymbals, percussion, and some vocal sounds can really rub digital up the wrong way sometimes.
That’s why today some producers still like to track drums and vocals to analogue.

[tea for two]

I shall state the obvious.
In 10 years of the 80s there were my below par estimate 1 million records released around the World in a myriad of styles.
So which release in which style from which musician band orchestra from which part of the World is to us that 80s sound.

There's Blues, Classical, Country, Dub, EDM, Electronic, Folk, Jazz, HipHop, Metal, New Jack Swing, New Wave, Pop, Reggae, Rock, Ska, Singer Songwriter, Soul, Soundtracks from filums, Synth pop, TV themes, World.
To name a few from the 80s which I listen to.

::

Two of my favourite filum soundtracks from two ends of the 80s.
Blade Runner by Vangelis.
Last Temptation of Christ by Peter Gabriel and chums from various parts of the World.

[Arpangel]

Digital reverberation changed everything, and in a way, spawned whole new genres.
We went from springs and plates, with short times, to any space you like, amazingly realistic halls, to huge imaginary cathedrals and canyons.
Changed my life, literally.

[Tim Gillett]

I shall state the obvious.
In 10 years of the 80s there were my below par estimate 1 million records released around the World in a myriad of styles.
So which release in which style from which musician band orchestra from which part of the World is to us that 80s sound.

Yes it's sometimes assumed that we all know and can agree upon what is "that sound". I'm not sure that we could reliably identify "that sound" without the clues as to date of recording such as artist, song etc.