Filter
Top Products
1) The song and the vocals was what producers wanted and perhaps
that hasn’t changed much. Bands were recorded with live vocals
back then. Even overdubs were a band thing. Much of the signature
of both the British or American sound were the vocal harmonies.
Same today.
2) It was only practical to record as a band, as a group. They rarely
used a click, except for TV & film scores. The “groove”, as today,
was important, but it was a little less rigid. It sometimes meant
MANY band takes with different tempos and stylings.
3) Arrangements were often written in stone. It was cool to walk in
with a working rehearsed arrangement. Sometimes professional
arrangers were hired. The fewer the instruments, the easier it is to
make each one sound great. They ‘featured’ instruments by writing
musical rests for the other parts rather than moving a fader. Big and
powerful dynamics could mean more players, more chairs.
4) The mixes were critical because the word re-mix wasn’t created
yet. Remember, each “bounce” had to be a real mix and these
submixes were the basis of the final mix. This is where they EQed
most. Part of the British sound was dipping a bit between 200 Hz and
1K on some instruments . It was the “proper” way to clear space for
each instrument. Bass was hinted as the secret of rock and roll. Part
of the American sound was both the bored union engineers and the
young rookies. There wasn’t much gear so they stretched it and
pushed it hard. Simple shelf EQs and filters were the norm and “bell
curves” were rare until the mid 70’s. However, they sometimes had
5 to 7 band graphic EQs. They could and did cut tape so they mixed
in sections and spliced - no automation.
5) Not much effects in dem days; tape slap, live chamber reverb and/
or EMT plates. Some were OK and some were plain bad. They did
focus more on creating an acoustic space with the mics. It wasn’t
until 16 track that it became fashionable to focus on separation and
dead rooms. Then we heard a lot of overdubs and double tracking
and we got the 70’s sound.
6) DI boxes and synths were very rare, percussion was normal,
“unusual” instruments were cool. Song “structure” often leaned
toward a few standard patterns (ABABCAB). It was a more innocent
era but more likely to be censored. On the other hand, the phrase
“politically correct” would have been viewed as a joke, an oxymoron.
Some of these techniques may be useful to you whether you are
attempting to resurrect the 60s or the get the cool grunge of the 90’s.
Some tricks like the editing of mix sections can be transposed to
workstations with all the advantages of both. It sure can be a better
alternative to an long automated homogenized mix. Limiting
overdubs may inspire getting that perfect band groove and may spur
creativity. Limiting yourself to shelves and filters or old gear may
be a silly way to get the 60s sound. When you want to lean on
shelves, the Massive Passive EQ shelves and filters are about as
good as it gets. In other words, an old analog engineer will feel right
at home - well “hear” right at home”. Now if you could just remove
that computer screen.......
Individual Sounds: There just isn’t a general EQ that works on all
snare drums, or kicks or vocals. Too much depends on the player, the
instrument, the room, the mic, and a hundred other variables. We
heard of one producer that insisted on cloning a guitar sound he once
got by insisting on using this elaborate chain that he had documented
of amps, mics, several vintage compressors and several old EQs.
There were 3 problems. This producer insisted that only the exact
settings he had so carefully noted were used. It was a different studio
with different individual units, like mics, like rooms, consoles,
engineers.
The last problem was that they only had a few weeks to shout at each
other. Avoid that technique. You gotta be creative, play it by ear, use
your own variation if it works out that way this time. Only the final
result counts. There are many ways to get a killer sound and too
damn few that work every time. You may know most of this already.
General Suggestions: If you are recording acoustic instruments,
the most important first step is going out to the studio and listening,
evaluating and memorizing. Next step, if there is a way you can fix
a sound physically, like changing a drum skin, or tuning a tom, this
is the time and place. If you can, you should attempt to improve the
mic choice and positioning. There’s always room for improvement,
but most often the obstacle is “available time”. EQing is usually
faster than experimenting with mics unless the producer wants
“perfection”. EQ is maybe more dangerous though and a poor
substitute for great mic technique.
Vocals: There is something that makes EQing vocals very difficult.
Human beings have evolved hearing fine tuned to other human’s
voices. Not many people know precisely what a drum sounds like
but almost everybody can recognize when the vocal sounds weird or
natural. Another common factor is the goal of making a mediocre
vocal sound awesome through the miracle of electronics. The
toughest one is when the singer deeply desires to sound like their idol
and thinks that the only difference is the gear and settings. With luck,
you may work with a great singer and discover you need no EQ and
it sounds incredible. Same is true with spoken words. Some of the
best paid guys are those professional voices that do narration, voice-
overs and character voices. They don’t do it with EQ, it's in the voice.
If the singer is having headphone adjustment problems, try flipping
the phase of the mic and asking the singer which they prefer. Some
mics are out of phase with some people’s bone conduction or the
headphones are 180 degrees out, but there seems to be 50-50 odds
that flipping the phase will sound better to them and about 99%
likely it will sound the same to you (until you put on their phones talk
into the mic and check it out).
We commonly chop off the lows while recording voice to kill room
rumble and “pops”. Some use a HP switch on some mics, some angle
the mic so its not directly facing the mouth, some use the mic pre
filters and some use their console EQ. The Massive Passive HP
filters are as good or better than anything you have been using for
filters. The other most common technique is boosting highs. Part of
this is because somebody used a dull mic because it was advertised
as “warm”. The other reason to boost is a bright, airy voice may be
needed with massively over-dubbed, over-synthed mixes just to get
above the track. Watch out for boosting too much esses as you try
to get it bright. Conventional high shelves (even if set for 16K) will
boost the esses and possibly the mids. The Massive Passive was
designed to not have that very common problem and allow some
unusually gorgeous highs. Some engineers, avoid EQing to tape
while recording, but use it in the monitor or mix channels as needed.
This way, they still get a good working mix and may hear if
headphone leakage will end up being a problem. On the other hand,
as the tracks add up, some engineers find it more practical to EQ
tracks while recording, so that speedy fader mixes are simple for the
months of overdubs. In the mix, if you find yourself wanting to boost
a lot of highs, try dipping the mids and boosting the highs less. If you
still need a de-esser use it as the last processor in the vocal chain in
the mix. Wanna know one of the least expensive and best de-essers?
“A bit of chewing gum or wax filling the gap in the singer’s front
teeth.”
21