How to make record albums


I have read many threads regarding the quality of current production records and, well I was wondering how one goes about making records the "right way". I mean, using the same mics, mastering equipment cutting, etc. they did in the GOLDEN AGE OF STEREO. I am talking about a totally analog process. How does one find the equipment that was used years ago to make the records. How do you get the vinyl that is of the highest quality? How do you attain the classic recordings? How do the Japanese do it and everyone else cannot? Do you need 180 or 200 gram vinyl? The older medium weight vinyl sounds great to me. I think everybody wants this, well how do ya make it happen? I'm in. When there's a will, there's a way. I looked online but could not find much.
tzh21y
I remember George Martin saying in an interview that even when he was producing the first Beatles albums,they were designed really only to sound good through the popular players of the time.That is a 3 in 1 console with speakers only 3 feet apart.He also admitted that he was only learning in public with doing stereo mixes of these records.It probably means you are correct to say that most people have no idea of what is natural or even good for that matter given the influence of the Beatles sound even today and how it is held up in such an iconic way as being the benchmark.Ten years before Muddy Waters and Howling Wolf were making great records that to my ears at least match the Beatles'.
My favourite record is one that was released not long ago, Joe Jackson's Rain album. Recorded as a trio in a Berlin analogue studio, and released on LP. A few clips from an interview:

"When Joe Jackson went into an East Berlin recording studio with the rhythm section that has accompanied him, off and on, for nearly three decades, he had the most strikingly simple line-up in mind: just piano, bass, drums and his unmistakable, eternally yearning voice. As he later pondered a name for this compellingly to-the-point collection of ten new songs, he took a similar approach. “I wanted something elemental because that’s the kind of album I wanted to make,” Jackson explains. “There is no padding on it at all; the album is stripped to the bare essentials, so I hope it has a timeless quality. The title seems to fit.”

http://www.joejackson.com/bio.php
There seems to be some confusion with people mixing up classical and pop/rock recording practices. Recording classical music is completely different than recording pop/rock. In general terms classical music is recorded to sound like a performer actually performing in a real acoustic environment. Pop/rock recordings do not adhere to that standard and have a "whatever works" mentality. In other words, classical recordings are trying to capture a great performance and pop/rock recordings are trying to produce a hit record.

As a result the recording techniques for each type of music is very different. Classical techniques is intended to be unobtrusive and virtually inaudible to the listener. The best way to achieve this goal is to have a very simple recording chain. Pick a good sounding hall, a well rehearsed and talented ensemble, 2 to 5 microphones (even for stereo more than 2 mics are needed to balance direct vs. hall sounds), some great mic preamps, a minimalist mixer and record directly to tape or hard drive. No overdubs, no EQ, no compressions, etc. Contrast that to even a stripped down sounding pop/rock recording. Recordings pieced together from individual instrumental tracks recorded in different studios. Drums playing to click tracks. Mixing MIDI performances with real players. Autotune. Adding reverb to intentionally recorded dry performances. And finally compressing the signal to the point of distortion (and beyond) so that it jumps out at the listener when played as part of some random playlist.

Other than economics there is no reason why current classical recordings cannot sound as good, or even better than the best "golden age" recordings. Current mic, preamps and mixers are better than the old equipment. The old equipment is rightfully legendary and revered, but it is 50 years old and worn out. The new recreations of the classic gear are better performer today. There is no magic to the golden age recording techniques. It was simply the dedicated application of a craft by skill artist and engineers. There's no technical reason why that same expertise and craftsmanship cannot be put into use today.
Thanks for the tip on Joe Jackson.. I learn something on here everyday.

I agree about Martin also. The mixing console is whole other story.

And again you can look at tube based vs solid state studio gear. I know this forum is more for "The Listener" but we have to remember that no matter what you have invested in "audiophile gear", we are always limited by the source recording.

There is no such thing as mixing for universal sound across all speakers.

I used to do mixes for my own personal system that would never be released to the public. Why? because it would sound horrible on a car stereo or boom box.

Again I am talking rock records here, where there are too many instruments sharing the same frequency bands.

The old timers knew what they were doing.

A drum kit, upright bass, piano, and a horn or two, and you have a natural separation of frequencies that don't need manipulation in post production.

That's a big reason why that stuff sounds so good.. just common sense.
Onhwy61, what you say is not entirely true. A lot depends on the budget and space that is available for a band to record in.

An example is something called 'the Church' in Duluth, Minnesota. A good number of local Twin Cities bands travel to Duluth to use this studio because of the space- because they can record with only two mics, no EQ/no compression, no overdubs. One band that has done this a lot (and as a result, has turned out some great LPs) is a Duluth band called Low. I'm pretty sure Paul Metzger has recorded there too.

None of this material is on the audiophile's radar, even though it was done all-analog, on 180 gr. vinyl at RTI, yada yada.

When we did our LPs, we had our own space to do the work. Although they are not audiophiles, the other members of my band insisted on no overdubs, that is, the material was all recorded in the same space at the same time. We were still learning the space at the time so I think the first LP did not turn out as well sonically as the new one.

The second time around I rebuilt a set of Western Electric tube mic preamps, and we ran them directly into the recorder, and used them for the drums, which had a set of Neumann U-67s overhead with a few spots on the snare, ride and kickdrum. But we recorded the whole thing in one go for each track on the LP. There were separate tracks for each instrument/microphone, so we could mix it later.

BTW in our case, the LP is the only format released. We did do 24-bit backup digital tracks, but they proved to be no match for the analog master tapes. When we mixed everything, we used the best systems we could get our hands on for reference (tube amps, high end speakers) with no thought of what it might sound like on a car stereo or Ipod. Guess what- sounds fine on those things too. IMO the idea that you have to mix for a car stereo or whatever is stupid, plain and simple.

I do not agree that recording a band is all that different from recording an orchestra; I've done both and I have found that they have more in common **so long as the band is trying to get the best sound possible**.

The trick is: no EQ, no compression, no overdubs. But- you **do** have to know what you are doing with the mics!