|
Post by slucero on Jul 8, 2021 10:23:08 GMT -8
Last we heard, the mixing was being done by Bob Clearmountain. Cain at one point did say that Kalmusky would be involved. Not sure if that still stands. The mix is odd - I partly wonder if it's because everybody recorded their parts separately. However, alot of bands work like that and they sound pristine/clear/crisp. My biggest issue is, I hear Arnel, Neal, and then just a fat deafening wall of Cain synth. Listening to Higher Place, I hear alot of individual instrumentation. This is just a heavy wall of noise. I have a hard time believing that Clearmountain mixed this. TBH though, it really doesn't matter who mixed it.. its more where it was mixed... I'm more inclined to believe this was mixed in an untuned room environment (like a bedroom in a house)... because a mix done in an untuned room would sound 100% fine when mixed in the untuned room, only to show the untuned rooms imperfections/issues when played back elsewhere... Also as important - Mixing parts recorded elsewhere is also a problem because the rooms where those parts are recorded (and mixed) at can also have tuning issues... It's really important the recording and mixing environment's room characteristics are "known" and tuned... or else there's no sonic consistency from the getgo. This is what was consistent amongst recordings from the 70s.... all those great sounding records were recorded in studios that all had tuned control/mix rooms... so what was heard in the control room at Sunset Sound sounded exactly the same at Cherokee, or the Power Station. It's why those studios could charge a huge hourly rate. It's reflected in artists recording a single album in multiple studios... Sonic/acoustic predictability was the key...
As far as tuning a room goes... it's so easy its silly these days... there's software like Sonarworks... and there's physical "kits" sold by companies like Primacoustic & Realtrap. There really is no excuse for a piece of audio, especially at their level to sound like this...
I think Neal and QPrime are on the same page about it. I def. expected more after a decade of no new music plus Narara/Randy. One can only hope...
|
|
|
Post by tj on Jul 8, 2021 14:38:19 GMT -8
Last we heard, the mixing was being done by Bob Clearmountain. Cain at one point did say that Kalmusky would be involved. Not sure if that still stands. The mix is odd - I partly wonder if it's because everybody recorded their parts separately. However, alot of bands work like that and they sound pristine/clear/crisp. My biggest issue is, I hear Arnel, Neal, and then just a fat deafening wall of Cain synth. Listening to Higher Place, I hear alot of individual instrumentation. This is just a heavy wall of noise. I have a hard time believing that Clearmountain mixed this. TBH though, it really doesn't matter who mixed it.. its more where it was mixed... I'm more inclined to believe this was mixed in an untuned room environment (like a bedroom in a house)... because a mix done in an untuned room would sound 100% fine when mixed in the untuned room, only to show the untuned rooms imperfections/issues when played back elsewhere... Also as important - Mixing parts recorded elsewhere is also a problem because the rooms where those parts are recorded (and mixed) at can also have tuning issues... It's really important the recording and mixing environment's room characteristics are "known" and tuned... or else there's no sonic consistency from the getgo. This is what was consistent amongst recordings from the 70s.... all those great sounding records were recorded in studios that all had tuned control/mix rooms... so what was heard in the control room at Sunset Sound sounded exactly the same at Cherokee, or the Power Station. It's why those studios could charge a huge hourly rate. It's reflected in artists recording a single album in multiple studios... Sonic/acoustic predictability was the key...
As far as tuning a room goes... it's so easy its silly these days... there's software like Sonarworks... and there's physical "kits" sold by companies like Primacoustic & Realtrap. There really is no excuse for a piece of audio, especially at their level to sound like this...
I had no idea that all impacted the sound. It makes sense when you explain it, I just never thought about it. I suppose, as you pointed out, this is why great bands and great albums cost so much to make. Could this concept be part of what Jon talks about when he says that it costs too much to make an album? "Too much" is relative, I get that, and for a band like Journey it would seem that "too much" for you and me is the cost of doing business for them unless they are counting pennies that closely. Sort of like it costs too much to run a NASCAR team for me, but not for the people whose business it is to do it.
|
|
|
Post by slucero on Jul 8, 2021 16:25:14 GMT -8
I have a hard time believing that Clearmountain mixed this. TBH though, it really doesn't matter who mixed it.. its more where it was mixed... I'm more inclined to believe this was mixed in an untuned room environment (like a bedroom in a house)... because a mix done in an untuned room would sound 100% fine when mixed in the untuned room, only to show the untuned rooms imperfections/issues when played back elsewhere... Also as important - Mixing parts recorded elsewhere is also a problem because the rooms where those parts are recorded (and mixed) at can also have tuning issues... It's really important the recording and mixing environment's room characteristics are "known" and tuned... or else there's no sonic consistency from the getgo. This is what was consistent amongst recordings from the 70s.... all those great sounding records were recorded in studios that all had tuned control/mix rooms... so what was heard in the control room at Sunset Sound sounded exactly the same at Cherokee, or the Power Station. It's why those studios could charge a huge hourly rate. It's reflected in artists recording a single album in multiple studios... Sonic/acoustic predictability was the key...
As far as tuning a room goes... it's so easy its silly these days... there's software like Sonarworks... and there's physical "kits" sold by companies like Primacoustic & Realtrap. There really is no excuse for a piece of audio, especially at their level to sound like this...
I had no idea that all impacted the sound. It makes sense when you explain it, I just never thought about it. I suppose, as you pointed out, this is why great bands and great albums cost so much to make. Could this concept be part of what Jon talks about when he says that it costs too much to make an album? "Too much" is relative, I get that, and for a band like Journey it would seem that "too much" for you and me is the cost of doing business for them unless they are counting pennies that closely. Sort of like it costs too much to run a NASCAR team for me, but not for the people whose business it is to do it.
Jon's studio (Addiction Sound) is a ground up, professionally designed studio, with state of the art recording tech. This means all tuned rooms. Recording spaces that are intentionally reflective (live), or treated to be intentionally quiet (dead). Likely a fully suspended control room (think a suspended box in a box), making the control room completely impervious to external sound proof. No sound gets in. Or out. Vintage hardware. The latest software tech. All this makes for a studio that can be in high demand for its sonic accuracy, and simply because its a purpose built facility. Historically, labels made bets (investments) on artists, and would only allow them to record in places like this... for lots of reasons. Its a cost of doing business and they wanted to ensure their money resulted in something they could sell. Nashville is kind of still like that - "old school".
So Jon's right when he says it costs too much to make an album, but only when referring to Addictions cost (or a studio like it). On the other hand, the advance of recording tech has drastically lowered the barrier in getting good sound audio. When I went to audio engineering school in the 80's I learned computer based recording on the 1st iteration or Pro Tools... and back then it was useless. But the idea was profound, and all us students "got it" straight away..
Journey is kind of between a rock and a hard place. They don't sell enough anymore to justify a huge recording budget... that's why they ran out of money/time doing Eclipse with Kevin Shirley and wound up finishing it in Nashville. Jon's reticence tells me he doesn't see the economics of it either, and their recent postings indicate they are self-funding, which again indicates there not being a economic "match" now vs. their heyday. So if they want to create remotely, they need to create in spaces where the result is usable, or the results in aggregate are always a crap shoot. Technology has changed that and they need to avail themselves of it.
This is a good article on what it costs to record an album these days.
|
|
|
Post by slucero on Jul 8, 2021 17:04:36 GMT -8
For those who think it can't be done... this is a good example of remotely recorded parts.. mixed in a home studio... the bearded kid playing the Gibson SG mixed it... and it's better than the original...
|
|
|
Post by tj on Jul 9, 2021 7:57:24 GMT -8
I had no idea that all impacted the sound. It makes sense when you explain it, I just never thought about it. I suppose, as you pointed out, this is why great bands and great albums cost so much to make. Could this concept be part of what Jon talks about when he says that it costs too much to make an album? "Too much" is relative, I get that, and for a band like Journey it would seem that "too much" for you and me is the cost of doing business for them unless they are counting pennies that closely. Sort of like it costs too much to run a NASCAR team for me, but not for the people whose business it is to do it. Jon's studio (Addiction Sound) is a ground up, professionally designed studio, with state of the art recording tech. This means all tuned rooms. Recording spaces that are intentionally reflective (live), or treated to be intentionally quiet (dead). Likely a fully suspended control room (think a suspended box in a box), making the control room completely impervious to external sound proof. No sound gets in. Or out. Vintage hardware. The latest software tech. All this makes for a studio that can be in high demand for its sonic accuracy, and simply because its a purpose built facility. Historically, labels made bets (investments) on artists, and would only allow them to record in places like this... for lots of reasons. Its a cost of doing business and they wanted to ensure their money resulted in something they could sell. Nashville is kind of still like that - "old school".
So Jon's right when he says it costs too much to make an album, but only when referring to Addictions cost (or a studio like it). On the other hand, the advance of recording tech has drastically lowered the barrier in getting good sound audio. When I went to audio engineering school in the 80's I learned computer based recording on the 1st iteration or Pro Tools... and back then it was useless. But the idea was profound, and all us students "got it" straight away..
Journey is kind of between a rock and a hard place. They don't sell enough anymore to justify a huge recording budget... that's why they ran out of money/time doing Eclipse with Kevin Shirley and wound up finishing it in Nashville. Jon's reticence tells me he doesn't see the economics of it either, and their recent postings indicate they are self-funding, which again indicates there not being a economic "match" now vs. their heyday. So if they want to create remotely, they need to create in spaces where the result is usable, or the results in aggregate are always a crap shoot. Technology has changed that and they need to avail themselves of it.
This is a good article on what it costs to record an album these days.
This is really interesting. How much of the sound anymore is due to the recording engineer? My understanding is that this person traditionally played a huge role in the choosing of proper microphones, placement of them around the room, etc. Are they still a big part of the recording process or is technology able to solve for that? It seems like 6 guys in different parts of the world each with different types of equipment, placement, etc. would have a hard time getting a "group" sound that someone could use.
|
|
|
Post by slucero on Jul 9, 2021 8:27:23 GMT -8
Jon's studio (Addiction Sound) is a ground up, professionally designed studio, with state of the art recording tech. This means all tuned rooms. Recording spaces that are intentionally reflective (live), or treated to be intentionally quiet (dead). Likely a fully suspended control room (think a suspended box in a box), making the control room completely impervious to external sound proof. No sound gets in. Or out. Vintage hardware. The latest software tech. All this makes for a studio that can be in high demand for its sonic accuracy, and simply because its a purpose built facility. Historically, labels made bets (investments) on artists, and would only allow them to record in places like this... for lots of reasons. Its a cost of doing business and they wanted to ensure their money resulted in something they could sell. Nashville is kind of still like that - "old school".
So Jon's right when he says it costs too much to make an album, but only when referring to Addictions cost (or a studio like it). On the other hand, the advance of recording tech has drastically lowered the barrier in getting good sound audio. When I went to audio engineering school in the 80's I learned computer based recording on the 1st iteration or Pro Tools... and back then it was useless. But the idea was profound, and all us students "got it" straight away..
Journey is kind of between a rock and a hard place. They don't sell enough anymore to justify a huge recording budget... that's why they ran out of money/time doing Eclipse with Kevin Shirley and wound up finishing it in Nashville. Jon's reticence tells me he doesn't see the economics of it either, and their recent postings indicate they are self-funding, which again indicates there not being a economic "match" now vs. their heyday. So if they want to create remotely, they need to create in spaces where the result is usable, or the results in aggregate are always a crap shoot. Technology has changed that and they need to avail themselves of it.
This is a good article on what it costs to record an album these days.
This is really interesting. How much of the sound anymore is due to the recording engineer? My understanding is that this person traditionally played a huge role in the choosing of proper microphones, placement of them around the room, etc. Are they still a big part of the recording process or is technology able to solve for that? It seems like 6 guys in different parts of the world each with different types of equipment, placement, etc. would have a hard time getting a "group" sound that someone could use.
The skills needed for recording engineering & mixing are no longer something akin to "magic"... because most of the necessary skills can be learned on the internet/YouTube. There are scores of engineers who have made virtual teaching careers for themselves by teaching and creating courses specifically designed for this... that one can buy for $100bucks...
Having learned these skills still doesn't preclude one from having a proper environment to use them... and that challenge has only been flattened recently (within the last 5-10 years) with the advent of the room tuning tech I mentioned earlier. The above AC/DC video mix is an example of this.
99% of what is on the radio has been likely demoed in a home studio... and most of those tracks make the final product. The exceptions are country music recorded in Nashville... where most of that is studio based... but even that is changing as there are scores of home studios there too.
It's also important to remember that today most don't really listen through speakers anymore, instead using headphones/earbuds, so most mixes are tailored to their reproduction properties/capabilities. The mixing equation gets more convoluted when having to mix for MP3 , but that is whole other discussion. Users listening through headphones/earbuds also means the stereo spectrum is different, because true "stereo" only exists when listening through a set of speakers in front of you. Look at the picture below.
The left is how we used listen (true stereo)... the right is how we listen now.. (not true stereo)
This requires a different approach when mixing.
One can mix for headphones on headphones, but the same tuned room rules apply. Again, as would have been done in the 70s when listening through speakers in a control room, the "room" (this time headphones) must be tuned, which effectively means the frequency response of the room must be measured then flattened with acoustical treatment. This ensures that whoever is listening (engineer/mixer/etc) is hearing exactly what is being recorded, unaffected by the rooms acoustics.
With headphones one is effectively putting a "room" on each ear... and the frequency response of the headphones are readily known, so accounting for this with EQ software (like Sonarworks) is easily done.
Listen to the above AC/DC video. That is exactly what you thought would be difficult. 5 guys in different parts of the world recording their parts, then sending their parts to the mixer... who likely mixed this on headphones.... and it sounds amazing.
This is why IMHO there is no fucking reason Journey can't put out quality at a lower cost. They just have to get their heads out of the 70's and learn how.
|
|
|
Post by tj on Jul 11, 2021 11:58:03 GMT -8
This is really interesting. How much of the sound anymore is due to the recording engineer? My understanding is that this person traditionally played a huge role in the choosing of proper microphones, placement of them around the room, etc. Are they still a big part of the recording process or is technology able to solve for that? It seems like 6 guys in different parts of the world each with different types of equipment, placement, etc. would have a hard time getting a "group" sound that someone could use. The skills needed for recording engineering & mixing are no longer something akin to "magic"... because most of the necessary skills can be learned on the internet/YouTube. There are scores of engineers who have made virtual teaching careers for themselves by teaching and creating courses specifically designed for this... that one can buy for $100bucks...
Having learned these skills still doesn't preclude one from having a proper environment to use them... and that challenge has only been flattened recently (within the last 5-10 years) with the advent of the room tuning tech I mentioned earlier. The above AC/DC video mix is an example of this.
99% of what is on the radio has been likely demoed in a home studio... and most of those tracks make the final product. The exceptions are country music recorded in Nashville... where most of that is studio based... but even that is changing as there are scores of home studios there too.
It's also important to remember that today most don't really listen through speakers anymore, instead using headphones/earbuds, so most mixes are tailored to their reproduction properties/capabilities. The mixing equation gets more convoluted when having to mix for MP3 , but that is whole other discussion. Users listening through headphones/earbuds also means the stereo spectrum is different, because true "stereo" only exists when listening through a set of speakers in front of you. Look at the picture below.
The left is how we used listen (true stereo)... the right is how we listen now.. (not true stereo)
This requires a different approach when mixing.
One can mix for headphones on headphones, but the same tuned room rules apply. Again, as would have been done in the 70s when listening through speakers in a control room, the "room" (this time headphones) must be tuned, which effectively means the frequency response of the room must be measured then flattened with acoustical treatment. This ensures that whoever is listening (engineer/mixer/etc) is hearing exactly what is being recorded, unaffected by the rooms acoustics. With headphones one is effectively putting a "room" on each ear... and the frequency response of the headphones are readily known, so accounting for this with EQ software (like Sonarworks) is easily done. Listen to the above AC/DC video. That is exactly what you thought would be difficult. 5 guys in different parts of the world recording their parts, then sending their parts to the mixer... who likely mixed this on headphones.... and it sounds amazing.
This is why IMHO there is no fucking reason Journey can't put out quality at a lower cost. They just have to get their heads out of the 70's and learn how.
So is it possible that this mix sounds bad because it's heard on YouTube, rather than from a CD, lp, or download? A better mix won't make it a better song, but would it sound better in a different format?
|
|
|
Post by slucero on Jul 11, 2021 16:38:10 GMT -8
These days when mixing... one has to mix for the format it will be on... so you do a mix for Youtube, one for Spotify, another for CD, etc... The main reason is the bitrate it will be played back at. Lossless is the highest fidelity. A higher bitrate = a bigger file.
"AIFF" and "FLAC" are uncompressed audio, the rest are compressed... what is lost in reducing the file size is the source material sounds that are "soft", meaning they do not meet the loudness threshhold of the compression codec. Why you play a compressed audio file (like an MP3), you are playing it through a codec the de-compresses it and also tries to algorithmically recreate the lost source material... that is why MP3's SUCK.
So mixing for different formats requires one know how those formats replay the audio... and there is no standard.
Example: Spotify Premium users can play tracks back at a rate that is considered "lossless"... this is effectively the highest streaming rate there is... it means there is no compression algorithm being used to compress the tracks to the listener... what is heard is what was recorded... the highest fidelity available. Of course you have to have the bandwidth to handle this. For non-Premium uses its all bandwidth dependent..
Youtube has no lossless replay ability... so the mix for that will be different.. IMHO the mix is "bad" because it's dynamically flat... which is partially the fault of the mix and partially the song itself..
The song just drones on from beginning to end. There's nothing exciting about it. You can't fix that in the mix.
|
|
TNC
Full Member
Posts: 231
|
Post by TNC on Jul 24, 2021 12:22:48 GMT -8
I don't like religious music, but Cain's new single is mixed better than Journey's new single. Unsurprisingly, Kalmusky was involved who also did a pretty good job on Eclipse imo.
|
|
|
Post by steveo777 on Jul 24, 2021 12:48:44 GMT -8
I don't like religious music, but Cain's new single is mixed better than Journey's new single. Unsurprisingly, Kalmusky was involved who also did a pretty good job on Eclipse imo. It does sound good though. I hope the new Journey album isn't as muddy sounding as the single. It just sounds kind of distorted to me. With the band all together, they have a great opportunity to fix things before releasing a sub-quality product. As an example, they have Arnel in the states now, so he's not sending in vocals recorded in a room overseas that might have been subpar, etc.
|
|
|
Post by slucero on Jul 24, 2021 13:26:19 GMT -8
I don't like religious music, but Cain's new single is mixed better than Journey's new single. Unsurprisingly, Kalmusky was involved who also did a pretty good job on Eclipse imo.
I agree... if they aren't working with a known producer at another known studio then Kalmusky should mix/engineer at Addiction. That place is made for world class recording and production.
|
|