Perfect sonics heard on classic recordings - can't seem to replicate it?

[heavenorlasvegas]

Hi all,

I would like to preface this by saying I have been recording music for over 20 years. Throughout that time, I have tried neve gear (original and new), Harrison, Api, and many others. I have tried almost every piece of gear you could imagine. I have even tried different converters and different daws.

I know what some of you are going to say, It's the performance not the gear. and while i do agree to some extent, performance is performance, and sonics are sonics. And this post is about sonics.

Having said all of this, would any of you have any tips on how to achieve this kind of sonic perfection?

In all honesty, I Believe that it's about harmonic distortion and soft clipping but I have yet to hear a piece of gear that clips as nicely as what I hear on most classic records.

anyway, please help

TIA

[RichardT]

There are very, very few tracks I would call 'sonic perfection' personally, and what that means varies from person to person anyway.

IMO, there are a few astounding recordings from the analogue era, but many of them sound very poor by today's standards. Ditto digital recordings from the 80s.

I would say that the sound of recordings generally has significantly improved in the 21st century. Though at the same time, people widely use tools that degrade the quality in order to achieve loudness, or a genre-specific sound.

Other opinions are available!

So, I think it depends what you mean by classic - which eras are you referring to? Any particular tracks or albums in mind?

The answer is not in technology, in any case. There's nothing you can buy to achieve sonic perfection. Just endless attention to detail, a deep understanding of music, recording and mixing, and skill.

[adrian_k]

We are going to get in a muddle here. To some, sonic perfection means zero signal distortion and flat frequency response throughout the chain. To others it means the feeling you get from certain recordings possibly from a certain era - from your reference to soft clipping I’m wondering if you mean the latter. Perhaps it would help if you could point us to an example?

[heavenorlasvegas]

There are very, very few tracks I would call 'sonic perfection' personally, and what that means varies from person to person anyway.

IMO, there are a few astounding recordings from the analogue era, but many of them sound very poor by today's standards. Ditto digital recordings from the 80s.

I would say that the sound of recordings generally has significantly improved in the 21st century. Though at the same time, people widely use tools that degrade the quality in order to achieve loudness, or a genre-specific sound.

Other opinions are available!

So, I think it depends what you mean by classic - which eras are you referring to? Any particular tracks or albums in mind?

The answer is not in technology, in any case. There's nothing you can buy to achieve sonic perfection. Just endless attention to detail, a deep understanding of music, recording and mixing, and skill.

look, i know what you're doing here. trying to promote you're plugins are you? To bedroom hip hop and trap producers?

That's great but this isn't really the thread for it. good try.

[heavenorlasvegas]

We are going to get in a muddle here. To some, sonic perfection means zero signal distortion and flat frequency response throughout the chain. To others it means the feeling you get from certain recordings possibly from a certain era - from your reference to soft clipping I’m wondering if you mean the latter. Perhaps it would help if you could point us to an example?

supertramp - breakfast in america. how's that?

[Sam Spoons]

There are very, very few tracks I would call 'sonic perfection' personally, and what that means varies from person to person anyway.

IMO, there are a few astounding recordings from the analogue era, but many of them sound very poor by today's standards. Ditto digital recordings from the 80s.

I would say that the sound of recordings generally has significantly improved in the 21st century. Though at the same time, people widely use tools that degrade the quality in order to achieve loudness, or a genre-specific sound.

Other opinions are available!

So, I think it depends what you mean by classic - which eras are you referring to? Any particular tracks or albums in mind?

The answer is not in technology, in any case. There's nothing you can buy to achieve sonic perfection. Just endless attention to detail, a deep understanding of music, recording and mixing, and skill.

look, i know what you're doing here. trying to promote you're plugins are you? To bedroom hip hop and trap producers?

That's great but this isn't really the thread for it. good try.

I'm sorry but I got entirely the opposite impression from RT's post, I've read it three times so far and can't see how you reached that conclusion?

[Hugh Robjohns]

supertramp - breakfast in america. how's that?

It was recorded on a Harrison console and an Ampex multitrack. All the usual high-end high-quality mics in a good sounding studio B at the Village Recorder studios in LA... with a lot of talent and experience in the performers, engineers and producers.

[James Perrett]

I know what some of you are going to say, It's the performance not the gear. and while i do agree to some extent, performance is performance, and sonics are sonics. And this post is about sonics.

You can't divorce the sonics from the performance. Professional gear actually makes very little difference to the sonics but all the difference to the way the session is run. It gives artists more control over the end result without getting in the way.

Given your Supertramp example, I see no mention of (to my ears) the most important part of their sound which has nothing to do with the recording technology and everything to do with the instruments and arrangements that they used.

Drum tuning and playing style are an essential starting point - plus the way the bass interacts with the drums. I've heard plenty of outtakes over the years and most aspiring recordists would have been perfectly happy to use those takes on the final recording. But the producers of the time were looking for something more so they kept going until the magic happened. Once you have an inspiring base to build on, the rest comes much more easily.

I heard someone taking Michael Jackson's Beat It apart the other day. The sounds were actually nothing special compared with thousands of other tracks from that time but it was the arrangements and the way that everything fitted together that made the track sound good.

If you ignore performance and arrangement then you will never come to understand the magic of these recordings.

[RichardT]

There are very, very few tracks I would call 'sonic perfection' personally, and what that means varies from person to person anyway.

IMO, there are a few astounding recordings from the analogue era, but many of them sound very poor by today's standards. Ditto digital recordings from the 80s.

I would say that the sound of recordings generally has significantly improved in the 21st century. Though at the same time, people widely use tools that degrade the quality in order to achieve loudness, or a genre-specific sound.

Other opinions are available!

So, I think it depends what you mean by classic - which eras are you referring to? Any particular tracks or albums in mind?

The answer is not in technology, in any case. There's nothing you can buy to achieve sonic perfection. Just endless attention to detail, a deep understanding of music, recording and mixing, and skill.

look, i know what you're doing here. trying to promote you're plugins are you? To bedroom hip hop and trap producers?

That's great but this isn't really the thread for it. good try.

Er, no, quite the opposite!

[RichardT]

supertramp - breakfast in america. how's that?

It was recorded on a Harrison console and an Ampex multitrack. All the usual high-end high-quality mics in a good sounding studio B at the Village Recorder studios in LA... with a lot of talent and experience in the performers, engineers and producers.

It's interesting that 'Crime of the Century' was recorded in London and is of equally high quality. With a different producer too. And different equipment.

[Hugh Robjohns]

One of my favourite albums, recorded largely at Trident Studios on a Trident B console (I think) and at Ramport Studios on a Helios desk, both using 3M multitracks.

[Eddy Deegan]

look, i know what you're doing here. trying to promote you're plugins are you? To bedroom hip hop and trap producers?

That's great but this isn't really the thread for it. good try.

I've no idea why you wrote this reply to RichardT but it was uncalled for as his post didn't suggest anything about plugins, hop hop or trap in any way.

Please be more considerate with your responses going forward.

[Arpangel]

There are too many variables to take into consideration regarding the OP's question, just too many.
Every recording is different, in this order, musicians, producer, instruments, studio, equipment.
The music will determine the "sonic character" if it’s LA Jazz/Soul it will be shiny, warm "nice" if it’s Bowie in his Hero’s phase it will be cold, hard, edgy, Steely Dan, precise, tight, clean, all these things come across in the music's sonic signature.
It’s quite ironic, I often listen back to some of my music and think, why don’t my current recordings sound as "good" as those I made 15 years ago? I have better equipment than I had back then so what’s changed?
Nothing has changed, it’s my attitude that has changed, and now that comes across in my music regardless of what equipment I’m using, my music would sound the same if I recorded it on a Neve "whatever" in some top studio, or on a Zoom handy recorder, also, why would I want to sound like some else? it’s my music, my production, my feelings, I am me, not someone else, and I don’t want to be someone else.

[adrian_k]

supertramp - breakfast in america. how's that?

It was recorded on a Harrison console and an Ampex multitrack. All the usual high-end high-quality mics in a good sounding studio B at the Village Recorder studios in LA... with a lot of talent and experience in the performers, engineers and producers.

This made me go back and read the SoS article on The Logical Song. Interesting that Henderson thought the Harrison desk EQ was too harsh at the top end and did the mix elsewhere. Also that he wouldn’t use that combination of mics on drums again. They spent ages planning and prepping to get the best sound they could so the mix would be relatively straightforward, but in the event the mix was anything but.

It’s a good read: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... gical-song

[SafeandSound Mastering]

I agree there is something as perfect sonics. Though it tends to be the recipe of parts that are greater than merely the sum of parts.

Subjective taste comes into it a little, expectation, perspectives and the genre of music.

It also becomes difficult to seperate from the piece of music itself, if you adore a song great leeway is given for "sonics". There are some tracks I really love the feel and atmosphere of but the mixing is almost demo quality. (often the 80's had demo independent quality or overly bright lacking in body world class studio recordings.) However there was no shortage of amazing songs.

It hugely depends on the genre expectations.

Perfect sonics tends to equate to fidelity, clarity, definition, punch, pleasant tonal balance and yet smoothness, "turn-up-ability".

Of course depending on an instrument and genre, perfect sonics could be crystaline clarity space (smooth detail) and depth or in your face gross distortion.

It is a fun topic that cannot be easily drilled down into without sonic examples.

Dave Gilmour - On An Island gets close to some beautiful sonics to me, merely one example, maybe post some examples. (seems he has a massive NEVE on his house boat.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgtoe1CvlHE

This is a track by an underground artist called Lunarave, it was for a compilation so not an artist album/EP/Single track, it is one my absolutely favourite tracks in the genre and it sounds lush, punchy and hypnotic. It is far from being a big track in the genre. It has immense turn up ability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_eEtYkqgEs

Totally different genres, one made on probably a £ million of gear and one made on 10 grand. (one recorded instruments and one synths)

There are too many, for the vibe...the sonics are 100pct spot on. Whole Lotta Love

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQmmM_qwG4k

Sister Sledge, like silk !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43qB9FpfCR8

There are endless masters of sonics in disco music...

The Brothers Johnson - Stomp!

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

ABBA, Nile Rodgers, Quincy Jones productions.

"Peak analogue sonics" did seem to be the late 70s. I edited the post to say that it was quite rare to get both in alignment, many superb songs do not necessarily have perfect sonics. There is much greater leeway for underground genres to have a more rough and ready sonic aesthetic.

It can even add to the underground, rebellious characater. You get to a point where it does the song no favours though, it's always about degrees. For example between brash and unlisteneably harsh.

[RichardT]

I just had a listen to some of Breakfast in America. It definitely has an analogue-era feel to it - slightly warmer than 'real', slightly 'softened', with some gentle dynamic compression.

These days, if you used reasonable gear to capture it, the basic sound would be cleaner and more realistic.

To recapture the Supertramp sound with modern recordings, you would have to simulate the effect of analogue recording done with the gear of the time. There was a recent thread about this:

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... p?p=981693

There's a lot of good info in there, I hope it helps!

[SafeandSound Mastering]

Much of the smooth punch of excellent analogue recordings is related to lots of electro-magnetic transfers between source and your listening ears, mic coils (dynamic mics of course), mic input transformers, maybe inductor EQ, tape machine electro magnetic transfer, output stage transformers.

All of this will slow and soften transients. (transient distortion essentially)

Whilst letting all the transients that do exist be as they are, there was no limiting or clipping (unless some was intentional).

[James Perrett]

It is also worth remembering that those recordings were mixed and mastered for vinyl. I took a listen to Take The Long Way Home from Breakfast In America on YouTube and it has (to me) very obvious vinyl mastering hallmarks. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the original studio mix sounded much better - or at least it should have.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

I listened to the remaster of the album streaming lossless 24 bit on Apple, and it does sound "tapey" but not mastered for vinyl, to my ears. If we had examples of the OP's work, maybe we'd have a better basis for comparison with SuperTramp.

Full disclosure, I find most modern equivalent genre music is totally over-cooked. Too much snapping to ET tuning (the human voice is not a piano) and the grid of 16ths.

I think, especially with this band, the arrangment is the thing. The performance is a given. There is a lot of subtle variation, layering to create a single new sound rather than an obvious combination, and something changes every 8 bars or so. Then there's dynamics. Roger Hodgson has a clear voice he does not force the starts of words (the other guy seems to need more compression and is still not that clear). The guitarist is similar, very steady. Dynamics are used musically.

Obviously, as James already pointed out, the instruments are not just played really well, they're tuned really well. No intonation issues, no inappropriate resonances. Try getting a real Wurlitzer piano to sound that silky smooth- not so easy!!

Finally, Ken Scott was involved in earlier works. He learned from The Beatles. They did all of that stuff. I assume Supertramp learned from Ken?

Mixing music this well performed and arranged is relatively easy. I have some classic multitracks, such as Queen, Madonna, The Police, and in all cases the mix is 85-90% there with the faders at zero. Add reverb it's even closer. Some of them don't even need eq. Like, none.

[James Perrett]

Mixing music this well performed and arranged is relatively easy. I have some classic multitracks, such as Queen, Madonna, The Police, and in all cases the mix is 85-90% there with the faders at zero. Add reverb it's even closer. Some of them don't even need eq. Like, none.

I had a reason to revisit a mix that I re-created of a hit single the other day - I had forgotten how few effects I needed to use to re-create the mix. There were specific effects like Dimension D on certain tracks but very little else apart from reverb. It was probably helped by the original engineer recording certain effects, like delays, to tape.

[RichardT]

Tomás, you were listening to the 2010 remaster (that’s what I also found on Tidal), while James may have been listening to the original.

I agree that the arrangements are critical for Supertramp. They often keep them really simple and that helps make them punchy and dynamic.

FWIW, I agree about the overcooking! But I am old…

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Tomás, you were listening to the 2010 remaster (that’s what I also found on Tidal), while James may have been listening to the original.

I agree that the arrangements are critical for Supertramp. They often keep them really simple and that helps make them punchy and dynamic.

FWIW, I agree about the overcooking! But I am old…

Thank you yes, I thought they might be different masters. Since we both agree about the overcooking, we must be correct LOL. But seriously, I watch some of the Wings of Pegasus videos. He is doing the good work, I hope people listen. What he is analysing, I think, is the stuff we would take for granted as "the singer's job", and we'd do extra takes, or let the singer get on with it... it was a kind of magic. Now with autotune removing all the pitch bends and swoops, we can see where the "emotion" is. And it is cleaned out. I swear most singers on record now sound like robots to me. I heard some pop music from UAE recently, and they're using autotune, and it's not even the right temperament, it's horrible. It cannot do microtonal scales. But no one seems to care?

[BJG145]

It cannot do microtonal scales

That got my attention. (To be continued...)

[Tomás Mulcahy]

It cannot do microtonal scales

That got my attention. (To be continued...)

Please let me know what you discover. The facts have changed since I last looked. Autotune still cannot do it, because it is limited to 12 note steps. Melodyne has user editing, but there is no commonly available template as far as I can tell, which is very odd. Ableton now has presets, and apparently so does a thing called Graillon 3. They can do Maqamat, Bayati and Rast. But I need to do further research.

But it still sounds horrible IMO. Because a voice is not a piano (I think that is what Wings of Pegasus dude also keeps arrguing, it is not my original thought).