The quality of opeth recordings
- Thread starter Audiophile
- Start date
AnTz0r
Crimson King
It's true that the compression technique can be usefull if used proper. It is even necessary for a good signal/noise ratio and that you can use the full dynamics of the cd format. 96dB I thought it was.
Besides the compression abuse by audio engineers. It is ridiculous how bad some cd's are produced anyway. That people even dare to bring out copies of it. You pay a lot of money for a cd a ratio to mp3 and for that money you get crap produced recordings.
Another point what is anoying me with al lot of recordings are the way the drums/percussion are mixed. the cymbals, hihats etc are mixed totally tot the left or right. Like there is someone drumming with arms with the size of a giant. It's not realistic at all. They way I think the recording should sound like. Is that if you close your eyes while listening it must be soundig like your standig in front of the stage with every band member standing on the right place.
Besides the compression abuse by audio engineers. It is ridiculous how bad some cd's are produced anyway. That people even dare to bring out copies of it. You pay a lot of money for a cd a ratio to mp3 and for that money you get crap produced recordings.
Another point what is anoying me with al lot of recordings are the way the drums/percussion are mixed. the cymbals, hihats etc are mixed totally tot the left or right. Like there is someone drumming with arms with the size of a giant. It's not realistic at all. They way I think the recording should sound like. Is that if you close your eyes while listening it must be soundig like your standig in front of the stage with every band member standing on the right place.
Cyrosis
Member
- Aug 21, 2006
- 223
- 0
- 16
IMHO (and I've done this) this sounds really wonky for anything but symphonic music. As far as drum recordings and panning, its not that they have giant arms, its that typical drum mix's are done from the players perspective, there for the drum kit is essentially surrounding you. Once more, the "panning" you are most likely referring to is not done in the mixing stage, its the stereo set of overheads used to give kits a stereo image and to capture cymbals, cymbals are very rarely close mic'd (except for the hi-hats) so in most cases the engineer has a stereo file to work with that houses all the cymbals, panning individual cymbals would be possible.
Anyhow, too much compression sucks
Lothlorien
Towards the Great Sky
- Jan 28, 2006
- 1,853
- 2
- 38
AGREED! IMO Deliverance is Opeth's best "sounding" album. The drums are so crisp and still have a bit of echo/reverb to them. The album is flawless, as well as Damnation. That's why I lean towards Opeth chosing Steven Wilson for their future recordings.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
Deliverance was mixed by Andy Sneap! That's who you should attribute the clarity and crispness to. Deliverance sounds so different, sonically, to any other Opeth release and that's purely due to his involvement in it. To add, I don't think his mixing style suits Opeth at all. Don't get me wrong, the guy is one of my idols and I frequently reference his productions when mixing, but he's more for the straight-up metal bands.
In terms of cymbal panning, it's all about overhead placement. Most modern metal engineers favor the spaced pair approach which is essentially two mics a few feet higher than the kit spaced out left and right, which creates a very wide stereo image. If the OHS are placed right the cymbals should spread all over the stereo field.
In terms of cymbal panning, it's all about overhead placement. Most modern metal engineers favor the spaced pair approach which is essentially two mics a few feet higher than the kit spaced out left and right, which creates a very wide stereo image. If the OHS are placed right the cymbals should spread all over the stereo field.
biggsy
New Metal Member
I would really enjoy an Opeth album where Steve Wilson produced it, but had no input on the actual material. I love D+D but I'm more interested in hearing Opeth when I listen to their albums, not a mix of Opeth and Wilson.
Some interesting posts in this thread. I have taken it for granted for years that spatial maniplation of the drums could be perceived as odd. Mixing from either drummer or audience perspective is so ingrained in me that I never thought about the reality of seeing a band perform (without a PA, because it might be manipulated in that case) in that there is little, if any, perceived spatial distinction between any of the pieces of the kit.
However, since when has mixing been about representing reality? Good mixing ought to part science, part art. One of the best things about mixing in stereo as opposed to mixing mono is that by giving instruments their own place in the stereo field helps to combat the problem of frequency masking, which will cause instruments to be perceived as softer or of a different sonic character (louder wins). Two instruments that are harmonically similar should occupy different places in the stereo field. I always have imagined that I mix in three dimensions: panning provides width, frequency provides height (a strange psychoacoustic phenomena is that hgher frequencies are perceived "above" lower frequencies...compare where a kick hits you as opposed to, say a flute), and reverb (or room mics) provide depth. That's not even really considering volume, which I might include in depth.
Given that, mixing an album is often not about representing reality. It's about making the limitations of a playback system that has only (in a 2.0 system) 2 sound sources work at representing what originally came from many dedicated sound sources (individual drums, cymbals, amps, etc.). It's pretty amazing it works at all, and we really take it for granted.
I remember when Def Leppard's "Hysteria" came out, I was complaining about it to my dad, saying that they could never do it live (I didn't know about MIDI back then), and he asked me why an artist should limit themselves on a recording to what they could do live. "Aren't they two different things?" he asked. I'll never forget that.
Incidentally, I'm not really a fan of Deliverance's sound. Damnation, yes. Deliverance sounds a bit to cold and sterile, to me.
However, since when has mixing been about representing reality? Good mixing ought to part science, part art. One of the best things about mixing in stereo as opposed to mixing mono is that by giving instruments their own place in the stereo field helps to combat the problem of frequency masking, which will cause instruments to be perceived as softer or of a different sonic character (louder wins). Two instruments that are harmonically similar should occupy different places in the stereo field. I always have imagined that I mix in three dimensions: panning provides width, frequency provides height (a strange psychoacoustic phenomena is that hgher frequencies are perceived "above" lower frequencies...compare where a kick hits you as opposed to, say a flute), and reverb (or room mics) provide depth. That's not even really considering volume, which I might include in depth.
Given that, mixing an album is often not about representing reality. It's about making the limitations of a playback system that has only (in a 2.0 system) 2 sound sources work at representing what originally came from many dedicated sound sources (individual drums, cymbals, amps, etc.). It's pretty amazing it works at all, and we really take it for granted.
I remember when Def Leppard's "Hysteria" came out, I was complaining about it to my dad, saying that they could never do it live (I didn't know about MIDI back then), and he asked me why an artist should limit themselves on a recording to what they could do live. "Aren't they two different things?" he asked. I'll never forget that.
Incidentally, I'm not really a fan of Deliverance's sound. Damnation, yes. Deliverance sounds a bit to cold and sterile, to me.
dcat
Member
^ Hi Dave, just a quick one as I have a gig to go 2...
You could do some research into "Dummy Head" recording and "Crossed Pair" recording!!
Laters.
You could do some research into "Dummy Head" recording and "Crossed Pair" recording!!
Laters.
As I read between the lines I understand that you have al lot of experience with audio.
I don't no with what sort of equipment you are working with and using at home. But my experience as end user is that it is possible to produce the persussion without to much pannning so it sounds über realistic on a decent audio set. It 's true that I refer to high end audio sets that cost a lot more than the coomon audio sets that everyone own. But there are lots of albums who have this 'feature' and they have no problems with the psycho accoustic problems.
Yes, i'm aware that not everyone owns a high end audio set costing thousands of dollars/euro's.
^ Hi Dave, just a quick one as I have a gig to go 2...
You could do some research into "Dummy Head" recording and "Crossed Pair" recording!!
Laters.
Binaural recording is really cool! It only really translates to headphones though, Right? It's still really cool. Wish I could mess around with it. I had a recording of Stephen King's "The Mist in 3-D" that was a binaural recording. Very, very cool.
The effect that miking has on our perception of a recording just blows me away. In my schooling, I don't think they spent nearly enough time exploring this. There are so many different techniques(Blumlein pair, XY, ORTF, NOS, MS, AB, etc.) and I've only been able to experiment with a few. My guess is that in popular recording, you end up close-miking so much that it wasn't worth covering in any detail. It's a shame, as someone pointed out in this thread. We don't listen to drums with our ears next to them...
I'm all for room mics, btw. Have to try to observe the 3 to 1 rule as much as possible, though. Not enough air in most metal recordings (particularly in the drums). Best snare plus room sound, imo, is the snare on Isis's Oceanic.
As I read between the lines I understand that you have al lot of experience with audio.
I don't no with what sort of equipment you are working with and using at home. But my experience as end user is that it is possible to produce the persussion without to much pannning so it sounds über realistic on a decent audio set. It 's true that I refer to high end audio sets that cost a lot more than the coomon audio sets that everyone own. But there are lots of albums who have this 'feature' and they have no problems with the psycho accoustic problems.
Yes, i'm aware that not everyone owns a high end audio set costing thousands of dollars/euro's.
Sure, some peole get carried away. But there's something to be said for the dynamic movement that a tom fill provides that would be lost were you to narrow the stereo field. Again, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Uber realism can sometimes be uber boring.
Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
There is a reason that certain standards have been set in popular music mixing. We use as much of the stereo field as we can to add excitement and space that the listener can pick up, even if just subconsciously.
There would be no way that the standard 4-rhythm guitar approach in metal these days would work without extreme panning!
It's all about creating a sonic experience that is better than reality. The fact that we have 2 sound sources recreating what initially would have been created by a plethora of them forces us to guide every element into its sonic space and hence create this 'wall of sound' that simply doesn't exist in real life without reinforcement and equalisation.
Have you ever been in a rehearsal room with a band, where nothing except the vocalist is mic'ed up? I sure as hell don't want my albums sounding like that.
Throw that same band through a PA and start shifting some things around frequency-wise and you've already got a better thing going.
Take that one step further and record the band in the studio, get them to enrich their material with harmony overdubs, backings, assorted noises, ambient effects and you're essentially creating *the* definitive version of a song. Who really cares about whether a band can recreate it live? It's something I have to tell bands every day. It's about the music, not your ability to play it. If you can achieve some grand masterpiece on your album through using a few tricks or extra overdubs here or there, why shy away from it? You're only short-handing yourself in the end.
There would be no way that the standard 4-rhythm guitar approach in metal these days would work without extreme panning!
It's all about creating a sonic experience that is better than reality. The fact that we have 2 sound sources recreating what initially would have been created by a plethora of them forces us to guide every element into its sonic space and hence create this 'wall of sound' that simply doesn't exist in real life without reinforcement and equalisation.
Have you ever been in a rehearsal room with a band, where nothing except the vocalist is mic'ed up? I sure as hell don't want my albums sounding like that.
Throw that same band through a PA and start shifting some things around frequency-wise and you've already got a better thing going.
Take that one step further and record the band in the studio, get them to enrich their material with harmony overdubs, backings, assorted noises, ambient effects and you're essentially creating *the* definitive version of a song. Who really cares about whether a band can recreate it live? It's something I have to tell bands every day. It's about the music, not your ability to play it. If you can achieve some grand masterpiece on your album through using a few tricks or extra overdubs here or there, why shy away from it? You're only short-handing yourself in the end.
dcat
Member
Binaural is a headphone thing I guess, this guy called Zacarelli [I think] did an experiment in the 70's using a dummy head, he shook a box of matches in front, behind left and right and then round and round, on replay through h/phones he claimed that he could detect surround sound though this effect didn't work played back though a good stereo.
The vinyl recording was released but I never heard a copy hence no comment.
XY, ORTF, NOS, MS, AB...
What are these techniques Dave?
In the early days of classical concert recordings, no instruments were closely miked, just a pair of quality ribbon mics hung over the orchestra and a pair placed behind the audience I think...
On the right record label even the mono recordings sound remarkable.
Such a difficult task mic placement to capture a good live rock recording, I'd love to do some experimenting but such is life.
dcat
Member
Yes, i'm aware that not everyone owns a high end audio set costing thousands of dollars/euro's.
Mmmm, how Hi is Fi
I'm not so much into Hi End as Classic Audio...
http://www.audiojumble.co.uk/heathrowphotos.htm
Got fed up with all the hype and astronomical prices, my gear ROCKS like few others.
Don Corleone
Emre
i really want to understand what you guys are saying in this thread. could someone please recommend some articles (maybe on wikipedia?) to start with? yeah, you did link to "compression" but still, i have a lot of terms to learn to understand that article. so yeah?
Dummy head, or binaural recordings only work with headphones afaik. For folks like Don, what they do is stick some small omnidirectional mics into the ears of a "dummy head". I'm certainly not an expert, but to simplify it (perhaps oversimplify), perception of sound is dependent on many aspects of the human head. Think of it: how do we know a sound is happening behind us? We only have two ears that face mostly sideways. The brain decodes information like delay between the ears, frequency differences between the ears (the head casts a shadow among other things), volume, etc. The only way to reproduce that is to put headphones where the mics were. And it really works! There's software that can accomplish this, too.The Stephen King thing I listened to was like a radio play with music, and sound effects. Very creepy, because it sounded like stuff was creeping up behind you. Also, at Disney World, they had a thing where you put on headphones and get a "haircut". The sound is so realistic that you could swear someone was actually cutting your hair and using electric clippers.
Binaural recording on Wikipedia here.
Binaural recording on Wikipedia here.
They're different stereo miking techniques that yield different results. Read this article.
XY
ORTF
NOS
MS
AB
I've only done XY, AB, and MS (my boss got an MS box and we used it to mic a piano quartet.... we were like a couple of kids on Christmas!) The cool thing about MS is that you can decide how wide a stereo image you want and pull it in or expand it.
Haven't done any ensemble recording in a long, long while. I used to really enjoy it. Most of the time I had to pussyfoot around rather obnoxious musicians, hastily setting up mics, praying they'd practice enough for me before the house doors opened so I could get some decent levels. I had one woman (a singer, and vocal instructor) who said something to me about me and my "little recording people" being a nuisance while I quietly set up mics and asked for levels. Let's just say that when I brought this up with the head of the music department, I got an ashamed apology from the woman the next day. It was a moment of real vindication. Especially since no one could ever recall her having to apologiz for being a bitch before. Anyhow, being as that I had some serious constraints to work under, my miking was not always as artfully done as I would have liked. Most often, I used AB, but it was inexact, not really following the 3 to 1 rule (hence there were sometimes minor phase issues).
dcat
Member
^ Mmmm, thanks, very interesting and useful info.
I'm more into sound system installs and their sound quality atm though I may move into recording sometime soon.
Nice one about the moaning muso.
Agreed, Damnation is hardly a demanding recording and Deliverence, yes very clinical...
I DO love both these Opeth releases though!!!
There is a story from the early days of PCM recordings, on final mixdown an audiophile engineer brought along his old "Revox 736" High Speed version just for fun, when they compared early results the muso's ended up hiring the Revox to finalize production.
Valve's / Tube's Rule.
I'm more into sound system installs and their sound quality atm though I may move into recording sometime soon.
Nice one about the moaning muso.
Agreed, Damnation is hardly a demanding recording and Deliverence, yes very clinical...
I DO love both these Opeth releases though!!!
There is a story from the early days of PCM recordings, on final mixdown an audiophile engineer brought along his old "Revox 736" High Speed version just for fun, when they compared early results the muso's ended up hiring the Revox to finalize production.
Valve's / Tube's Rule.
Similar threads
