Sound on Sound article.

[keeponehandloose]

very interesting video on Sugar Rays studio, recordind in a totally vintage enviroment.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=_Q-scxybnp0

Edited April 21, 2017 by keeponehandloose

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited February 24, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[TimR]

I still prefer the sound we get when we record live through a basic 16 track mixer onto 2 track.

You just get a feeling that you're actually there.

[BigRedX]

I had the stop myself from switching off when he starts wibbling on about "honesty" right at the beginning off the video...

There's nothing wrong with recording like this, I've done it many times, and the results if you have the right environment and are suitably well-enough rehearsed can be great. But it's just another way of recording, no better or worse or more "honest" than any other, just different.

If it suits your band then by all means go ahead and record like this, but just bear in mind that recording studios in the 50s only operated like this because there was no other way of recording, and just about everyone embraced multi-track as soon as it became available and affordable.

[TimR]

It goes back to whether you want the recording itself to be a piece of art or whether it's a record of a piece of art.

Vocals, bass, guitar and drums. Why do you need multi track recording. The more instruments you add and the more complex the piece of music the more multi tracking makes sense.

[Dan Dare]

I think "honesty" a fair comment. Also appreciate that such a recording environment does not work for everything.

[ahpook]

If the band feel that they play better in that environment then more power to them.

But 'honesty' ? No - that's a hiding to nowhere IMHO. Recording is a process of deception - fooling your senses into thinking that something is happening when it isn't.

How much of that dishonesty you're willing to accept is a personal choice, there's no absolute.

Edited April 22, 2017 by ahpook

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited February 24, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[bazzbass]

I'm thinking of mastering my band's recordings in mono, seriously.

old is good again, vinyl is back

[mikel]

There is a lot to be said for recording this way, its the recording of a performance, a moment in time, I know it can also be done with multi track, one track for each instrument, but still all playing at the same time. That is my preferred way of recording, but I suppose the temptation then is to go through each track and modify even the slightest imperfections. Ergo its no longer the performance. I could never get my head around recording each instrument at a different time, it just goes against my ingrained perception of music being an organic performance and musicians playing off each other. I have done this once or twice in studios and its not my idea of a good time.

[mcnach]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1492786127' post='3283242']
I had the stop myself from switching off when he starts wibbling on about "honesty" right at the beginning off the video...

There's nothing wrong with recording like this, I've done it many times, and the results if you have the right environment and are suitably well-enough rehearsed can be great. But it's just another way of recording, no better or worse or more "honest" than any other, just different.

If it suits your band then by all means go ahead and record like this, but just bear in mind that recording studios in the 50s only operated like this because there was no other way of recording, and just about everyone embraced multi-track as soon as it became available and affordable.
[/quote]


+1

I couldn't bring myself to finish it.

I had to endure meeting with a guy running a local recording studio with all the old analog gear, talking about the sound quality and rawness and how "real" it was, and some of my at the time bandmates eyes wide open as kids in a candy store... and I just wanted out of there.

I'm not necessarily against all that, I just believe in using what you have to achieve a result and I don't think old=best. There's usually a good reason why some things are no longer in use so much.

We did a recording once using all tape stuff... They loved it. I could not stop being bothered about the tape hiss, thinking how in the old days they'd have taken that into account and would have been minimised in the final product. But it seems if you have old gear some people automatically thing you're better, even if you're a total hack.

Personally, I'm glad we're in 2017. A sound engineer who really knows his stuff has a lot of great tools at his disposal, new and old.

[Dan Dare]

[quote name='mikel' timestamp='1493023593' post='3284835']
There is a lot to be said for recording this way, its the recording of a performance, a moment in time, I know it can also be done with multi track, one track for each instrument, but still all playing at the same time. That is my preferred way of recording, but I suppose the temptation then is to go through each track and modify even the slightest imperfections. Ergo its no longer the performance. I could never get my head around recording each instrument at a different time, it just goes against my ingrained perception of music being an organic performance and musicians playing off each other. I have done this once or twice in studios and its not my idea of a good time.
[/quote]

I agree with this. Whilst I'm not enough of a luddite to think it fine to leave obvious faults on a recording and am happy to correct/overdub them, the spirit of the performance is what is most important. When it gets to the stage where you replace/re-record every part, that's a sign that the original performance was not good enough to start with.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Dan Dare

[TimR]

I heard an interview with Roger Daltrey where he spoke about one of their albums being recorded part by part. They spent 18months in a studio and binned the final product as being too clean. Then recorded the whole thing again ensemble in a matter of weeks.