when is clean/clear too clean/clear?

B

Bejogle

Guest
I was just listening over some old hip hop as i do from time to time and was wondering to myself if people make too big of a deal about having absolute pristine mixing and mastering on their tracks. Think of all of the classics in hip hop history, the vast majority were not mixed/mastered in multi million dollar studios.

RZA - 36th Chamber/Cuban Linx
Dre - The Chronic/Straight Outta Compton
Havoc - Juvenile Hell/The Infamous

All of those were done with very limited amounts of tools in some bedroom/basement, and they're classic. These days those producers are still working, now using multi million dollar setups, yet they fail to produce anythin close to their raw original albums. Pete Rock, Premo, 9th, Alchemist and all them meanwhile seem to be keepin it gritty and for the most part their **** bangs, even in this era of rap.

I dunno, do you ever feel like sometimes havin the beat too clean is detrimental? Im not advocating that they should be muddy with lots of frequency clutter either, but that slightly raw feel on tracks like shook ones, that's what i love about those albums.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe Dre has stated that he uses the same type of console now that he did for the original Chronic. I will doubt that he only uses that console alone but chances are that the console likely still plays a big part in his work.

My point is that it's hard to call that studio the album was worked on at a bedroom studio.

As for your question, neither is better than the other. Different strokes for different folks. Some people really do want that clarity, which becomes thin sound in some cases. Other want that fat sound which might be a little on the muddy side at times. They're both good in my book as long as it's not too much of either.
 
Much of the sound of the 36 Chambers was due to RZA's sampling practices, which weren't "pristine".

As for Dre and The Chronic...no, that was a well done album that may have been made in his crib, but his crib contained top of the line gear, anchored by an SSL. It was also mixed in a top flight studio. His reasoning was because he wanted to do albums that had the MJ quality of sound. He said, "where does Micheal get his albums mixed? That's where I want mine mixed" (I still have that issue of Rap Pages). The Chronic may not sound like today's albums, but it's still kicks butt, not to mention it sounded light years better than everything that was out then.

You gotta do what works for the song/project. Jack White obviously loves recording to vintage gear, much like Lenny Kravitz used to. Cody Chestnutt did his album by monitoring through headphones. I think that nowadays, if you know what you're doing, you can do just fine with the current technology and get a sound that works. If I can't feel the music, I don't care how great or crappy the sound quality is.
Peace
 
Yea chronic was definitely well done but compare it to his later works and its definitely more raw, especially in terms of drums.
 
Say this once a day on here, in digital audio it's not what you have, it's how you use it. Older albums were anolog recordings, alot of equipment was needed. None of those albums were done in pro tools, they were done on multitrack hardware and magnetic tape. Today, you can get top quality mastering from a laptop. I do agree, mix quality doesn't make a hip hop classic, but it dosen't hurt to have a CD that sounds as clean as everything else out.
 
if you look at that era of hiphop there was alot of grit and grime to the whole time period
 
Yeah, I really feel where you are coming from with that question. I always think about that. Of course you don't want your stuff to sound like crap...but you also don't want your hip-hop to sound like Toni Braxton's Christmas album either. Before I started messing around with beats I really never knew the difference between a poorly mixed/mastered song and perfect song. All I knew was if it made me nod my head. You ask 99.99999999% of the public if they can tell the difference, they'd say no. That's why mp3s got so big. I think sometimes we get caught up in mixing and mashing and everything else...but forget to ask the real question. Is it hot? I don't care how perfect your mix is, if people ain't feeling it...then you making beats for yourself. I don't know. Holla.
 
Yea i mean i guess its a style thing. Here you have Havoc who's actually putting vinyl static into his beats intentionally on tracks like Can't Get Enough of It, and that makes the track sound 5 times cooler.

and yea flchemist, i know exactly what you mean. I'm workin with a rapper outta NJ, and a year ago i sent him some beats. Now with an additonal year of mixing/mastering under my belt (5 years in total), i think those beats sound horrible but him and all of his friends still love it. Instrumentation wise im still feeling it but the production level to ME is inexcusable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nah, flchemist, I disagree with the statement that the public can't tell the difference. They do know the difference. The key thing is, whether or not you think it matters, it actually does. They know that CDs sound better than mp3s, BUT what the public has always cared about it portability. And if they have the choice of carrying around a booklet of CDs or a Creative Zen/Ipod/whatever with 1000s of songs on it...well, that's an easy choice. But the quality matters from the door.

Some people on this side of the fence often ask why do we work so hard when the end product will likely end up as an mp3. We didn't say it with 8-tracks, nor did we say it with cassettes. The only consideration with media like vinyl and cassettess is making sure that you keep their physical limitations in mind. Not so much with mp3s. Maybe with the high end, but that's something you can handle AFTER the fact. Not something you worry (or should worry) about WHILE you're mixing. The better the product, the better the mp3/aac/wma/whatever.

Make it sound the best you can. Make it sound like it needs to. Work everything else out from there.
Peace
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I respect that opinion. And I may have misstated on the, “nobody knows the difference” statement. I really mean, nobody cares….that’s why people buy iTunes. My point was that…the track has to hot…period. I’m not debating the importance of quality, but I think sometimes people get so caught up on the particulars…the track has to be hot first. Why even master a track if it’s whack? And I do think hip hop shouldn’t sound like a Barry Manilow standards album. There’s nothing wrong with a little edge here and there with hip-hop. But it’s funny…I say all of this, but I STILL try to make things sound as good as I possibly can… So I guess I do think quality is really important. Go Heat! Holla.
 
Last edited:
flchemist said:
I really mean, nobody cares….that’s why people buy iTunes. My point was that…the track has to hot…period. I’m not debating the importance of quality, but I think sometimes people get so caught up on the particulars…the track has to be hot first. Why even master a track if it’s whack?
Click to expand...
Honestly there's tracks like "it's going down" by yung joc, I hated that, would've called it garbage, until I heard it in my car. The quality of the bass in that song made me like it. I can't listen to it anywhere but in my car. Same as alot of lil jon stuff. I love kanye, but alot of his stuff doesn't have the same umph' in the car, his CD isn't in my car disc changer because of that. Just an example of why quality matters.
 
flchemist said:
I’m not debating the importance of quality, but I think sometimes people get so caught up on the particulars…the track has to be hot first.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I really do think quality is important, but my point was about the original subject of this thread. Basically, it has to be hot first. For you, bass matters, for some, other things matter. But you found something in Yung Joc's song that was hot. And I don't care how much it thumps or how great it sounds, if you're not feeling it, you're not feeling it. I'm sure you've had songs in your car that thumped...but you aren't feeling. But I see your point...if it didn't thump, you would've never felt it. But my point is that if the bass line wasn't hot...then you would've never felt it. Because I really feel that bass line in that song too. This is probably a chicken and the egg argument...might be one of those agree to disagree things... But all of you are really making some valid points. And you killed me with the trick quoting...just reading it, it sounds like I was talking about quality in general. But the "nobody cares" statement was talking about the general public and the difference between mp3s and CDs.
 
Last edited:
Well i think that certain artist tend to request that old school sound. And it works for them. For example, Nas' Street Disciple album had some gritty **** on there. Salaam Remi did a great job of keeping the drums really dirty. BUT of course the vocals were mixed to today's standard. So my point is that if you make a song that reminds people of N.Y. State of Mind you can get away with a grittier sound. On the other hand, if you make a song that reminds people of Candy Shop you would want to keep it as crisp as possible. Another example is Kanye West. On one album he manages to benefit from all kind of mixes. Like Heard Em Say's grittiness to Touch the Sky's vintage analog sound to Bring Me Down's top of the line Clarity. The song should determine your mix.
 
well you can always count on EDDIE KRAMER to get to the heart of a matter like this. he is easily one of the best engineers ever, if not the best (just listen to zeppelin's "since i've been lovin you" if you doubt this)....

and here's what he had to say about this whole thing that yall are discussing:

"I tell [students] that when I lecture at Full Sail or Berklee or the University of Miami, and they're always shocked because they think you're supposed to agonize over it, like you say. But I'm serious. This is not f***ing rocket science. Yes, there is a bit of science to it. There are some technical things you have to know. But, basically, it's about the song, the song, the song, the song. And then the performance. And then the sound. Of course, your technique has to be as good as the song and the performance. All of those elements have to come together. But don't belabor it!

One of the unfortunate things about today's music is that everyone has become so perfection-oriented. I have to blame that to a certain extent on Pro Tools and the ability to make things perfect. Don't get me wrong: Pro Tools is a wonderful device. It's a great editing tool. But I know from bitter experience that you give certain people Pro Tools and they'll sit there for months dicking around trying to make it perfect. The whole idea of rock 'n' roll music, to me, is going in there and playing like a band and trying to get out some emotion. Not making the vocals perfect and the guitar parts perfect. Rock 'n' roll should have some hair on it, if you know what I mean. Now, even hard-rock bands are working that way: They'll play a small section and then they'll time-stretch it and fart around with it, fix notes and all this. C'mon! Let's play this stuff for real! It really pisses me off."

now he is speaking specifically about rock music but i think it applies to other genres, especially rap where the original point of hip-hop was the accessibility of the song-creation/production process.

the complete interview is here if you want to check it (great interview):
http://mixonline.com/recording/interviews/audio_eddie_kramer_stops/
 
Last edited:
I think that it does matter. If you look at the people who dominate the industry, dre, tim, neptunes all have hard hitting beats with a clean sound. They all have a perfect blend of both. People always say that it doesn't matter, but look at it like this, there are mix engineers and mastering engineers who are taking the mp3 export into consideration when they do what they do. That is the reason why mp3's are sounding better than ever before. Plus it depends on the format used, some forms are not too lossy. But the ultimate goal is to make it sound as good as possible to start out so that when it does lose frequency data, it won't be as detrimental to the mix.

People also make it seem like everyone does not care about buying cd's anymore but people are still going platinum and the record stores are not going out of business, and I think that this is partly because people do realize that the cd sounds better. I remember I once thought that there was no difference until I had the opportunity to listen to a cd copy of the chronic 2001 cd in my friend's car and man I had to admit it sounded better than the mp3's I had. Again I might have had a low quality version but there is always a difference.
 
Last edited:
chosen1 said:
I think that it does matter. If you look at the people who dominate the industry, dre, tim, neptunes all have hard hitting beats with a clean sound. They all have a perfect blend of both. People always say that it doesn't matter, but look at it like this, there are mix engineers and mastering engineers who are taking the mp3 export into consideration when they do what they do. That is the reason why mp3's are sounding better than ever before. Plus it depends on the format used, some forms are not too lossy. But the ultimate goal is to make it sound as good as possible to start out so that when it does lose frequency data, it won't be as detrimental to the mix.

People also make it seem like everyone does not care about buying cd's anymore but people are still going platinum and the record stores are not going out of business, and I think that this is partly because people do realize that the cd sounds better. I remember I once thought that there was no difference until I had the opportunity to listen to a cd copy of the chronic 2001 cd in my friend's car and man I had to admit it sounded better than the mp3's I had. Again I might have had a low quality version but there is always a difference.
Click to expand...

"mp3s sounding better than ever before".... regarding mp3s, they will always sound off due to lossy compression, nyquist frequency, etc...

regarding today's music, its worth noting that many releases these days are overcompressed and lack any headroom (many are rendered with clipping on the full mix). the result is "louder" cds, as with recent rick rubin releases (audioslave, chili peppers, slipknot, system of a down, jay-z's "99 problems")..... these releases have met with immense commercial success. the tradeoff in getting this "loudness" that is so commercially appealing is that the nuances are squeezed out and the sound is dumbed down, due to the MUCH reduced dynamic range of the song. and then theres those annoying moments when you can kind of hear the compressor turning down the whole mix as the transients kick in (see the chours on audioslave's "show me how to live").

compare new releases from the red hot chili peppers (californication, by the way, stadium arcadium) with the first one they did with rick rubin (blood sugar sex magik). the first one (early 90s) was mixed with way less overall compression, and seemingly more headroom (as im not hearing any mix distortion when i hear the cd). listen to the first release, then listen to the later ones at the same volume on your stereo... the later ones will definitely seem louder because the record labels want to save you the trouble of having to turn up your volume knob.... unfortunately, the later ones also have compromised their ability to capture the band's potential for sonic dynamics.

this practice is commercially successful, but given the no-headroom-distortion, its far from being technically "clean/clear"... and given the no-headroom-distortion plus the overcompression, its far from being a nuanced recording with any really engaging display of musical dynamics.
 
Last edited:
Recording the beat too clean will never be detrimental. You can always "warm it up" and "muddy it up a little" during the mastering.

Record as crytal clear as possible. Throw the dirt on it later.

It doesn't work the other way around. Its hard to clean up the dirt off the original recording.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top