The Process of Making Records

I believe Tool still records at least some parts to tape because Adam Jones likes the sound.

The Foo Fighters went old school with Wasting Light. They did that whole album on tape and did razor blade splice editing. I can't imagine how nerve wracking that would be.

Thanks for the insights, I find this stuff fascinating.

 

I'm curious if @Psalmanazar or @atomicbob can shed any light on the process for recording live big concert albums. I'm thinking of things like the Dead's Cornell '77 live album and also GNR's Live Era 2-disc set, both of which are big venue recordings that sound great. An appropriate amount of crowd noise/ambience and a nicely balanced mix that doesn't make me want to just listen to the studio recorded stuff.

How does the process differ vs. a more controlled studio environment?

 

Grateful Dead in particular had a slew of live recording techniques that were often different than what most of their peers were doing. There is a wealth of information about their technology and techniques out there. This book is a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Grateful-Dead-Gear-Instruments-Recording/dp/0879308931

 

The Wall of Sound developed over the course of 1973 IIRC and was last used at the '74 Winterland shows just prior to the band taking a hiatus. When they returned from hiatus the Wall of Sound was gone. Part of it was the expense, it took three loaded semis to move the whole thing from venue to venue, and part of it was that a single crew of roadies were working nearly 24 hours a day to build, tear down, transport, and maintain it, with the exception being the period between sound check and the end of the night's show, but they were also working the show itself. It just became too much to continue and the fact it lasted as long as it did is a testament to the determination and sheer f'ing balls of the GD's roadies.

 

Now both Psalm and Marv noted that classical records differently. How, exactly?

Side note: I noticed that classical recording quality has been cyclical. Pretty good with 70s vinyl, kinda sucky in the 80s and 90s, then superb in the early 2000s and through the early 2010s, and pretty bad since about 2015 (if I had to pick a word to describe the last few years of classical, it’s “harsh”). Maybe that’s just what I’ve been listening to..? I don’t have exact examples, this is just an overall impression.

 

The example I am about to relate once again demonstrates my focus on jazz. In particular Jazz Port Townsend.

The venue is an old air balloon ship hangar at Fort Worden, McCurdy Pavilion. Acoustics of this space are, well, not good. Yet three very talented colleagues manage to create amazing Sound Reinforcement (SR) for the audience and record the performances for broadcast on NPR affiliated KNKX. Neville Pearsall runs FOH, Rick Chinn provides rather special mics from his personal collection and is responsible for monitor mix as well as a board mix to Jim Wilke for use on his Saturday afternoon NPR program Jazz Northwest.

SR done correctly is just that. Reinforcement as necessary, not Sound Blast Them Out of the Room. When done correctly all sound appears to emanate from the stage very naturally. Not an easy task given a balloon hangar acoustics. Between Rick's mic choices, placements and Neville's mixing skill they pull off some amazingly good audience SR.

Every instrument is close mic'd, including all percussion (drums.) There are a few area mics to capture entire ensemble sound. There are also mics pointed at the audience. During mix down audience mic faders are brought up at appropriate times to give the cues of a live performance. Otherwise they are kept down. All mics not in use are kept down, only to be brought up when needed. Otherwise the sound would result in a wall of mush. Managing the mix FOH mix during the show and post mix for broadcast requires considerable knowledge, skill and execution. I've attended these concerts and heard the recordings. The sense of "you are there" is very very good.

 

Excellent thread, Thanks!

I reverse googled the photo.

https://cluecho.com/10665/uncategorized/drumming-life-road/

 

Do they still use PZMs? At one time they were the shit, I'd see them overhead at many performances.

 

I think people who buy and listen to classical records love the whole frequency range and dynamic range of it --- if they are lucky enough to still have ears to hear it.

Not much of an academic/historian, but I recall a series I watched on appreciation of classical music. Working through the history, the lecturer came to "...and this was as loud as it got, before amplified music." I used to use a Wagner track to wake me up in the morning (on a wooden-box gramophone connected to a time switch ).

General Thread catchup...

Given the tooing and froing, especially as others have joined in, and people have asked questions about the finished results as we hear them: Where are we now in the scheme of things. And what comes next?

Am I right in thinking that we now have a collection of individual tracks from different instruments? Are they mixed to a stereo track now? What would that stereo track sound like compared to what we buy? How does the next (mastering?) stage change that?

 

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and wanted to make a modest contribution. In the early 2000s, I followed the daily updates of an award winning mixer who posted slightly fictitious updates of his efforts to record and mix an anonymous band. You can still find the posts on his blog, or compiled into book form as the Mixerman Diaries.

https://mixerman.net/

I bought the book and enjoyed reading it. If you enjoy learning more about how a studio recording session works, this may be for you.

 

70s through early 90s had good Neumann mics: the KM84 and the U87. The replacement KM184 and U87ai are very bright. The old mics are dying.

It's weird that modern records would sound worse because there's been big advancements in clean digital processing starting in about 2015 or so. Classical guys are probably not using these plug-ins at all but they exist.

There's also been big advancements in SDCs over the last 30 years. Just not from Sennheiser.

 

That's why I use the Atticus with the stock pads to listen to classical, it restores both the proper FR and the room ambiance in one neat package.

 

I was going to suggest this as well. I have the book on tape and really enjoyed it. There is quite a long bit about what @Psalmanazar talked about with bands who can’t really play their own music and how that is handled by the producer and/or labels.

 

I've recorded in a few really nice studios--digital and analog alike--and have hung out with engineers talking shop, I can't pretend to know the intricacies of what compressors, pres, mics sound good or not. 57s, Beta 52s, the occasional ribbon mic, that's all I've really messed around with personally. But the studios I recorded in were of the one-of-everything variety. Absolute treasure troves.

That said, all the nice stuff, at least in my experience, didn't always render the best recording or the best sound. And I think drums can sound amazing with fifteen mics close-up or the way Albini does them, with a lot of room sound. Another amazing drum sound that de-emphasizes close micing somewhat can be found on Calexico's records. It's a combination of a great, big, open studio (Wavelab), and some crack engineering by Craig Schumacher (and amazing playing by John Convertino).

Often, IMO, the best sounds come from an engineer knowing their room well and how to get the performance down in that context. Most of the time the recording equipment is great, too, but I've also read (in the likes of Tape-Op) about people using some pretty modest mics and pres to get there.

And, of course, there's Rudy Van Gelder and Roy DuNann and all of those BlueNote, Prestige, Impulse, and Contemporary Records sessions, which are recordings for the ages, and for good reason IMO. The techniques used there are a far cry from what came in in the late 70s (close mic everything), but those older records have incredible immediacy. From everything I've read, it was down to some great mics, canonically great musicians, and Rudy and Roy getting to know their rooms over countless sessions.

Contrast those records, too, with jazz recordings from the 80s on that are pristinely tracked but just dead and sterile and totally vibe-free. Any time I see a video of a jazz session and amps and drums are in isolation booths, it usually ends up sounding pretty bland. I guess my conclusion is that the room (and, of course, the musicians) ends up mattering just about as much as what's in the rack of gear in the control room.

That said, ECM is another contender for greatest recordings ever, at least in a jazz context. I know less about their recordings techniques, but they are likiely doing a lot of close micing.

 

I just want to say thanks for mentioning this. I know some old school metal guys who truly embody this. Rusty Cooley is a friend of a friend, and I've had the privilege of attending some late night jam sessions and it's clear that these guys place technical skill and artistry above all - to the point that they have lived without a lot of luxuries their whole lives, just to pursue their art. You have to respect it.

 

Mixerman and Slipperman (RIP) are internet legends.