Turtlerock Forum

Thought you guys might be interested in the way Jeff Lang mixed his latest album:-

A note from Jeff Lang -

.....I opted to try an experiment for mixing the album. I had noticed when listening to music on headphones during long-haul plane trips that certain recordings had a depth of field to them (certain instruments sounding palpably closer to the listener than others) that others did not. These were mostly acoustic jazz recordings from the late '50s and early '60s. By comparison many more recent recordings sounded like the instruments were plastered around my face with cling film.

I started to wonder if there was a way to obtain this perception of space with instrumental combinations that weren't conducive to recording in the fashion of these jazz albums.

The recordings I refer to were made with very few microphones, often cut straight to two-track. The blend of instruments is hit on by the players' positions in the room rather than recording each instrument separately and then achieving the balance during mix down. The playing and tones of the instruments are interacting at one time with one room, bouncing off one another.

When you have instruments that are playing together that have disparate volume levels however - a drum kit played with sticks alongside a mandolin for example - it's trickier to record this way and give each instrument it's correct relative volume. I really wanted to see if I could find a way to have everything co-mingling in one space at one time through a high-end stereo microphone though, so how could I do it?

I hit on a process where performances were recorded as I usually would but instead of mixing the album the conventional way (through a mixing board which sums the channels together via the master output fader of the desk), I ran every instruments' recorded track back through a monitor speaker each (or in the case of the drum kit, three speakers to replicate the physical size of a kit in a room). These speakers were then arranged in a room around the stereo microphone like they were the speaker boxes themselves were the players on an early stereo jazz session.

The intention with this process was to have the mixes obtain a perception of depth of field whilst getting the balance between the louder and quieter elements right. And it worked. If someone sounded too close or too loud, too quiet or far away or whatever we'd just move the speaker for that instrument closer or further away. It was fun to mix a recording this way.

But all of that doesn't matter if the songs don't grab you of course. I'm really pleased with this new batch of tunes and I really hope you enjoy the album.

We're taking it out on the road too, getting around the country throughout June and July. Hope to see you at one of the shows below.

Cheers,

Jeff Lang

Is the album being described here "I Live a Lot in My Head These Days" ?

Yes, that's the one. Just released.

I remember Jeff back in the 80s as a long curly haired young gun guitar player.

Playing guitar out in the street in front of a music shop in Geelong in Vic.

He could really play even back then, he must have been 16 or 17.

That mix technique has just blown my mind

Will have to check out that album!

there was a tchad blake interview where he described mixing a record like this, kind of.

but instead of large monitor speakers, he used 15 or 16 different speakers, like marshall quads etc

so similar, but i imagine a hell of a lot more crunch.

ain't no reverb like space between the mic and the source

Really interesting stuff...sounds like a great idea!

I've been playing around lately with trying to emulate more depth by creating a common "room" verb buss & running different elements in the mix to it, each with different pre-delay times & eq filtering, so as to "place" them in my virtual "room' at different perceived distances from the listener.

I read once about a similar idea, but at the tracking stage.

Everything gets tracked by a stereo pair of mics in the room. Mics stay in exactly same spot

Instruments are placed in the room for the stereo position and depth.

Wiz I think the record you are talking about the talk talk records, I can't remember which one but I think it was phill brown engineered and it was either pair of 47s or maybe 49s?

Just a thought on the technique Wiz mentioned, wouldn't it raise issues when you start to gain up certain instruments.

The instrument and the reverberance are tied together so trying to gain up a specific instrument would also bring up the reverb. I'm not certain but I would've thought that process over a few channels would start to mess with the reverb/space factor that is being aimed for.

ie. As you gain up the Mandolin that was placed to the left of the room the whole room image would shift to the left.

Thoughts?

I guess the idea would be to move the mandolin player closer to the mic rather than turn the mic up?

SYOS wrote:Just a thought on the technique Wiz mentioned, wouldn't it raise issues when you start to gain up certain instruments.

The instrument and the reverberance are tied together so trying to gain up a specific instrument would also bring up the reverb. I'm not certain but I would've thought that process over a few channels would start to mess with the reverb/space factor that is being aimed for.

ie. As you gain up the Mandolin that was placed to the left of the room the whole room image would shift to the left.

Thoughts?

I've done this as a sort of hybrid approach on a few albums with varying success. It really requires the musicians to commit to the idea and really go for it but when it works it's just stellar. I usually do run a few extra mics to cover myself or if I think an instrument is just not working well for the room or the balance and you have to have an engaging room and nice mics but it's a lot of fun...

Nothing blends or compresses quite as nicely as air.

When Jeff talks about modern recordings lacking depth and sounding like they are "plastered around my face with cling film", it seems pretty clear that he's talking about the whole over-compressing the f@#$ out of everything in the attempt to make everything louder than everything else debacle.

The wacky speaker-recording technique may or may not work, but really it's about a sound that existed in the majority of good recordings before computers came along and we a) weren't able to have 80 tracks all with 3 compressors on them and b) we had to actually make choices BEFORE we started using up our 8, 16, or 24 tracks.

Wiz wrote:I read once about a similar idea, but at the tracking stage.

I believe Mark Hollis' self-titled record was made this way.

I've done it where you just re amplify into the same recording space the elements that aren't loud enough in the live "stereo pair" , using the same stereo mic setup for the re record.
Of course you have to spot mic all instruments on the first recording.

The track i am mixing for somebody right now
Had 140 tracks
I have cut it down to about 100 but even then
Thats a lot of speakers to hire !!


I have tried this remix speaker technic before reamping drums
I kinda failed

.......

Why do people record 150 tracks ..?

Oh yes .. Cause they can ..

The best mixes ALWAYS start with great arrangements
No more then a shoebox or less of sounds obviously
happening at once is the ideal

100 tracks all at once sounds shit .. It has for days now

I bet jeffs record is just a shoebox full

Am I missing something here? Why wouldn't one just apply different length delays to the tracks to place them closer of further back? (and do the same to the 'verb).

You can definitely do that - I do that a bit when I want something to sit 'back', combined with eq and predelay / wet balance on a single room verb.

For me though, that's an attempt to approximate a very complex system (the room / mic position / etc) with tools that can model, but not replicate, that complexity.

Sometimes the model is better than the real thing. Sometimes not.

Wiz wrote:I read once about a similar idea, but at the tracking stage.

Everything gets tracked by a stereo pair of mics in the room. Mics stay in exactly same spot

Instruments are placed in the room for the stereo position and depth.

Album in question is mark hollis, color of spring.. 2 U49's in xy through an 1178, instruments moved around the mics.

One of the best albums you will ever hear, depth of feild is just outstanding, almost no EQ and minimal compression used.

Phil brown engineered it.

Think you mean Phil Brown.

mylesgm wrote:Think you mean Phil Brown.

Yes sir I did.

I dunno.

Those 50's records sound amazing for a bunch of reasons - great players/engineers/mics/pre's as well as the inherent limitations from the technology of the day.

No offence to Jeff but his latest album sounds nothing like that to me - it sounds like a lot of pre-production demos people record and mix at home.

If you want true depth of field in recordings, it has to be captured at the source with the right technique in the right space. No amount of re-amping, re-micing, artificial reverbs (analog or digital), delays will recreate that.

I'm agreeing with him^

It's interesting that you could go to so much trouble to replicate something that is so simple.

Haven't listened to the album but I would question the use of speakers to recreate the sound of live people playing in the room. It's kind of a photo of a photo of a real thing which may very well be very engaging and interesting but is not in itself the real thing. In fact many people have done a copy of a copy of a copy over the years to heighten the effect of the copy or some other intrinsic element (Alvin Lucier's I am sitting in a room comes to mind as does Trent Reznor and the resampled resampled resampled samples).

Didn't Magic Alex do something like that in the Basement of Apple on Saville Row back in the late 60s.
Was he just ahead of his time ?

Sonically and performance wise Native Dog Creek is still one of my favorite Jeff Lang recordings. Recorded at Mixmasters and produced by Kerryn Tolhurst it seems to always manage to engage me as a listener where as others do not. Also Chris Thompson did a great job recording Jeff. I recorded Jeff live at the St Andrews pub many years ago and mixed it in an unfamiliar studio without Jeff's input. I think i missed the mark by just a few degrees. For Jeff energy and authenticity are paramount and In retrospect I think I tidied up the mix just a bit too much to the detriment of the raw energy.

walding wrote:

Wiz wrote:Album in question is mark hollis, color of spring.. 2 U49's in xy through an 1178, instruments moved around the mics.

One of the best albums you will ever hear, depth of feild is just outstanding, almost no EQ and minimal compression used.

Phil brown engineered it.

I've obsessed over this record for years, along with the last few Talk Talk records, and have always meant to try and track down some info on how it was recorded.

I found this...

http://users.cybercity.dk/~bcc11425/IntWWpb1198.html

... but I wish there was more, or a behind the scenes doco or something.

And I still hope that one day Mark Hollis will pop up out of his hobbit hole, leave us another album, before disappearing once again.

If you read the Phil Brown autobiography, there is a lot about the making of these records.
Sounds like it nearly drove poor Phil insane.
Cheers,
Paul