Reference records

Just picked up some new Yamaha HS5's as I got fed up with the existing monitors (glad I did).
Wondering what recordings people here are using as a reference, I have to admit I ploughed out the old "Brothers in Arms" (like 'em or hate 'em).
 
Cheers...

the HONOR roll
 
http://www.digido.com/media/honor-roll.html
 
 

Reference recordings are only useful if you know what they're supposed to sound like.  It should be something you know well but not necessarily your favourite, or you risk hearing it you way you expect to regardless of what's coming out of the speakers.
You should also choose 2 or 3 different tracks that have different sonic properties, acoustic guitar, overdriven guitar, strings, synths.
Choose reference tracks that are relevant to the test you're making.  If you're setting up a PA for a rock band, don't use Simon & Garfunkel as your test reference...

 
Anybody else?
 
I'm especially happy to hear from people who don't really know how their reference recording is supposed to sound like . Perhaps we can pair some classical recordings with a thrash/rock/heavy metal band... Nigel Kennedy on Four Seasons just before, say, recording Motörhead, why not.
 
Cheers...

Over all Pink Floyd Dark Side of The Moon. Its great for getting a full spectrum sound. It also sounds great.  

Steely Dan. Best two albums are the last two. 'Everything Must Go' and 'Two Against Nature' They sound way better than any previous vinyl recording, period! All digital that is why. Tight is an understatement.
 
You don't have to know what they sound like at all but it does help. I have heard these on a $70,000 PMC monitor system and they sounded exactly like what I expected.
 
They are brilliant as a reference for any style and are also great for setting up live PA's. eg tuning into the room. There is so much space between all the parts. 
 
Alex the HS7's are way better than the 5's. Can you trade up. My son got a pair and we did some extensive testing in a very controlled setup. The 5's just don't have the bottom end. The 7' and the 8's certainly do.

It's not necessary to know what they're supposed to sound like. The point of the exercise is to find out what a good record sounds like on your speakers in your room, and then train your ears to that sound so you'll know when your own record's sounding good.
 
Unfortunately, you do have to trust others' evaluations for what records to use as guides. Often, queries such as this will be answered with everybody's favorite records, not necessarily those that meet the highest technical standards. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
 
Take the ubiquitous Dark Side of the Moon. There are technically much "better", higher-fidelity recordings that you could use as a reference. However, DSoM's enduring popularity has made it a standard of its own. If it represents your idea of a great-sounding record, then it'll work. It does for me.
 
It could, however, be totally wrong for you, especially if you're working with modern genres. Or genres outside your personal preferences. If I had to make an EDM or Hip Hop record I'd be lost - no references. In that case I'd consult with people who do enjoy those genres to recommend some references.
 
My point is that anything other people recommend as standard references may or may not be helpful to you. Steely Dan records were indeed made to very high standards, but if you're doing Metal or bluegrass they might not be all that helpful. Alison Krausse & Union Station's New Favorite is a case-study in capturing exquisite detail and clarity, and I never tire of listening to it. But it's not something you'd emulate for a prog rock or symphonic metal epic.

yes, DSOTM.....
if you eq your album to sound like that one,
it will sound rather dull.

i love that album,
and the way it sounds.
 
no way in the world would i use that album as a reference.
 

WAR: Why Can't We Be Friends (Low Rider)
Agree with Steely Dan, esp AJA
Fleetwood Mac: Rumors and Bare Trees
 
Low Rider has everything as long as you aren't going for a subwoofer hip hop thing.
 
J

I've come to realize something in that same vein as Danny is speaking of, gradually, but even more so recently - and fortunately for me, it seems to coincide with me finally starting to get a grip on mixing and how I think things should sound.
 
Don't like brickwall limiting? Don't do it. Hate auto-tune? Don't use it.
 
We've grown accustomed to having certain imperatives that we need to obey, but the truth is that those things are now practically irrelevant. You don't have to make music to satisfy the taste (or lack thereof) of teens and tweens, because they're not buying CDs anyway, hence, they don't represent an audience that you must please.
 
Do what you like the best you can. You don't have to live by those illusionary imperatives. There no longer is a target audience which you have to please unless you decide to.
 
I see reference records as a way to get a grasp on how your monitors and room sound, and maybe something you can use to re-tune you ears every now and then - because it's the nature of the thing that they can and do get used to sounds and deprive you from perspective, and you need perspective. Even if you have a very clear idea of where you're going, it seems that sometimes, you just start drifting a bit and the first thing you know, you missed your target.
 
Maybe even more so if you are a one-man army in charge of everything - writing, arranging, recording, mixing. As a musician, it's easy to take decisions that'll make your life a nightmare when you get to mixing. Especially after some time playing and recording in a session. Mud gets comfortable.
 
At least, that's how it seems to be for me.

Danny Danzi
Today, I create the sound of the music I work with. If I like the sound of it, it's a done deal really. My final question to myself is "do I like what I've created?" not "does it compare with what has already been done?".

 
This is fine (and great) for someone with your experience, but for a lot of us mortals it may be difficult to get a good sound, let alone create our own good sound.  A reference of something, anything, that sounds good sonically is something to study and to learn from.  Now that everyone is producing their own songs, I'm struck by how really bad a lot of it is.  Both musically and sonically.  I'm all for doing your own thing, and that may be enough for some, but I'm also for putting some effort into learning and practicing enough to achieve the ability to do something well.  It's surely more satisfying to the musican and more appealing to those who listen. 
 

We have a different set of rules, tools and sonic sound today that can't be compared to the 60's and 70's. Yes it's great music that I love too and though to some it may be better than anything today (which in some cases I'll agree) I don't feel the majority of production back then touches what we have now.

 
This is really apparent when music from back then is remastered well today.  I'm amazed at how great some of it sounds.  More clarity, more punch, more everything.  I don't think it's just a matter of today being a different age with different tastes, I think we have much better means of producing than we did 40 years ago.  But those that are good at it have spent years practicing and listening to what others have achieved before them.  I don't think you can become good at anything without first learning from the masters, even if you feel that what the masters did is now outdated.
 

I just don't see where this old stuff is so helpful TODAY and why it keeps on creeping into every reference discussion.

 
It may be good to separate the music from its production.  For example, I don't think there's much today that comes even close to what was acheived artistically in progressive rock during the 70's.  But this music was also produced with 40 year old knowledge and technology.  Remaster it with today's methods and it's a whole new music with lots to learn from.
 

6. Production values are genre specific. Sometimes they matter, other times they don't

 
I think you have to have some sort of values, otherwise what's the goal ?  You can record any old song played on a cheap guitar sung by a bad singer in a living room on a cheap cassette recorder but what would be the point ?  I might do it alone for fun but I wouldn't expect anyone to appreciate it and I certainly wouldn't do it for someone else even if they were paying me.
 
Danny, I hear your distress at the low standards of what some people want from music, but that's not a reason to lower your standards.  If someone is paying you for a production, they are also buying your talent and experience.  They're hiring you as an artist.  I wouldn't go producing junk just because that's what the customer is asking for.
 
Surely well-produced music will sound better anywhere it's played, whether in a car, through cheap earbuds or through a high-end system.  The listener can always destroy the music at their end if they want.
 

I'd rather create and listen to what I've done and hope that others may one day reference me. :)

 
Only if you don't produce crap just because someone wants you to.  What use would that be as a reference ?
 

Paul P
 
This is fine (and great) for someone with your experience, but for a lot of us mortals it may be difficult to get a good sound, let alone create our own good sound.  A reference of something, anything, that sounds good sonically is something to study and to learn from.  Now that everyone is producing their own songs, I'm struck by how really bad a lot of it is.  Both musically and sonically.  I'm all for doing your own thing, and that may be enough for some, but I'm also for putting some effort into learning and practicing enough to achieve the ability to do something well.  It's surely more satisfying to the musican and more appealing to those who listen.

 
Very true, but you also have to understand that the main thing I'm trying to stress is what people are worrying about quality wise....isn't something to worry about. Sure we want things to sound as good as we can at all times but you can't try to compare what was done in a 3 million dollar studio with guys in the know verses the little 5k-10k workstations most people have. That's my point....create what sounds good to you, not what has already been done.
 

Paul PThis is really apparent when music from back then is remastered well today.  I'm amazed at how great some of it sounds.  More clarity, more punch, more everything.  I don't think it's just a matter of today being a different age with different tastes, I think we have much better means of producing than we did 40 years ago.  But those that are good at it have spent years practicing and listening to what others have achieved before them.  I don't think you can become good at anything without first learning from the masters, even if you feel that what the masters did is now outdated.

 
See, here's one of the things we'll have to agree to disagree on. Most re-mastered material to me, has lost its luster. The new high end may allow you to hear things you never heard before, but in some cases I really feel it has ruined quite a few albums. I also don't agree that people have to spend years practicing this stuff to be good at it. I've heard MANY with less years than me sound as good or better. It's a matter of HOW and WHAT you practice that allows you to accelerate your progress. Trust me when I tell you.....it's huge to practice the right stuff whether it be in the recording field or practicing to be good on an instrument.
 

Paul PIt may be good to separate the music from its production.  For example, I don't think there's much today that comes even close to what was acheived artistically in progressive rock during the 70's.  But this music was also produced with 40 year old knowledge and technology.  Remaster it with today's methods and it's a whole new music with lots to learn from.

 
To me, re-mastering wouldn't cut it. I'd rather see them re-record with the sounds and techniques we have today. A good example, when Jimmy Page switched to EVH amps....his tone in MY opinion, improved and changed with the times, and rightfully so on the material he was playing at THAT time. You have to understand, though some like the older sounds, drums that sound like me hitting a box in a warehouse get old after hearing them for 30 years. Bass guitars with 0 percussive attack that just sound like beat bass strings with nothing but low end don't stimulate me like they once did. Guitars that sound like someone cut the speakers with a razor blade were cool for the times, but I don't like them TODAY. Stuff like that is great, I like it, I respect it, I salute it and it has helped me and others. I'm just tired of hearing about it over and over. If you recorded an album with those sounds today, you'd be considered dated. No bands today are sticking with those old methods....and if they do, they are altering them and hybrid-ding to NOT sound as dated. 
 
It's like teaching kids today about what happened in 1776. Can I be honest? If we taught them how to live TODAY and got them into current events TODAY at younger ages, we may have a different attention span as well as a different world. Though American (or insert your native country name here) may be important, it's old, dated and useless with living TODAY. Throw a kid in the water, they'll learn to swim. Nurture them and baby them, they'll end up drowning and relying too heavily on others. My point is, due to production taking a hit to where the majority of the world is listening on ear buds, and it allows YOU to create and have fun without stressing yourself out to compare to Dream Theaters latest.
 

Paul PI think you have to have some sort of values, otherwise what's the goal ?  You can record any old song played on a cheap guitar sung by a bad singer in a living room on a cheap cassette recorder but what would be the point ?  I might do it alone for fun but I wouldn't expect anyone to appreciate it and I certainly wouldn't do it for someone else even if they were paying me.

 
Of course....you definitely need values, morals and a goal or two. :) My point is, some people don't care and it's like pulling teeth to get them to realize this. Though I will NEVER let something out of my studio that I would not put my name on, there are times where I'm contracted to do what I'm told. I try like heck to stay away from these types of jobs, but they do help to put food on my table and come from reputable sources. I always open my mouth and never pass up a chance to make a difference for what *I* feel is for the better....but there are times when a producer or a client drives the bus and I need to make them happy or at least find that happy medium to where I too am happy with what we've created.
 

Paul PDanny, I hear your distress at the low standards of what some people want from music, but that's not a reason to lower your standards.  If someone is paying you for a production, they are also buying your talent and experience.  They're hiring you as an artist.  I wouldn't go producing junk just because that's what the customer is asking for.

 
Ah, please don't mistake my distress for me lowering my standards. I'd never do that. I'm just saying things are not as important to some people as they once were and there are times where my say is not welcome and I have to go with the flow. That's part of the business I don't like, but like I said, you better believe I will open my mouth and do everything I can to educate or possibly alter the course of something that may be going astray without hindering an artist or producers vision. :) I'll forever be about perfection as much as possible, Paul, I promise you that. :)
 

Paul PSurely well-produced music will sound better anywhere it's played, whether in a car, through cheap earbuds or through a high-end system.  The listener can always destroy the music at their end if they want.

 
Unfortunately, sometimes you just can't please a person and no, even if something is done good all across the board, it may not sound good on THEIR system. I have several listening spaces here and in my opinion, everything I do here that I feel "sounds good" sounds good on all my stations. Then my vehicle tests and if the stuff passes all of them, I REALLY feel good. That said, I've had material sound so good on everything I own and fail on what the client was listening on. It's easy to understand why they would base a decision on what they own.....it's all they have. I can't expect them to buy what I have so their stuff sounds like it does here. This is where we enter the waters of pleasing them, not lowering standards, understand what I mean?
 

Paul POnly if you don't produce crap just because someone wants you to.  What use would that be as a reference ?

Like I said, and anyone that owns a studio will tell you this.....sometimes your hands are tied and you can only say so much. Though I do not feel I have ever let anything out of here that has sounded like crap, there were a few times where the happy medium line I created favored the client because they just wouldn't budge. Rather than start a fight or throw them out, I allowed the 60/40 split of them being more happy than me.
 
Everything you've said makes total sense, Paul. I'm not for one minute trying to be confrontational. I just wanted to give another side to the discussion because I've been where some guys are now with trying so hard to get good sounds while comparing to stuff I love. The day I gave that up and stopped referencing was the day I came into my own and started creating based on what sounded good to ME first and foremost.
 
I don't miss the stress I put myself through trying to get close to what was done on a major label. I can't compete. Though I have very good resources and some decent know-how, there are some major productions that just make me shake my head both for being so incredible I can't fathom how they were done.....and some make me sick to my stomach because they are so terrible.
 
I think we only need to reference our monitors to set them up. Room eq stuff, if you use ARC, if you have a sub....even there, who's to say it's right? See, that's my other point man. This stuff is so subjective and artistic, it really doesn't matter if you compare yourself or not. Just doing something until it sounds right to you is ok for today in my opinion. Like the guy on this forum that posts his artistic creations on here that could care less what anyone thinks.....it's HIS art. None of us have to like it.....half of us probably do, but it's HIS take with HIS production.
 
What constitutes a good instrument sound? We can get 1000 answers on that one based on other peoples personal preferences. The point is, no one would be wrong yet several would disagree. So why spend any crucial time on it? I beat myself up so bad trying to compete and reference. I sincerely feel it helped VERY minimally.
 
What helped me was someone showing me and explaining things. We hear instruments mastered and mixed all together. Hearing the instruments all alone totally changes what you may feel is a good sounding instrument. See man, there are so many variables, it just doesn't make sense to me like it once did and I just wanted to throw it into the mix here. Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from a bit better. :)
 
-Danny

I cannot find recordings to use as references. Don't get me wrong, there are a TON of tracks with production that blows me away. I just can't relate it very well to music that I'm working on myself. In fact I can't even think of a single artist or engineer that I strive to sound like. I don't mean that in a smug "I'm unique" kind of a way - I just genuinely cannot find any music that sounds like the end result I'm striving for with my own music. When I hear a track with a great low end, it does not occur to me to try to replicate that low end on my own track. I guess the reason being that whatever decisions were made to achieve that low end were taken in the context of the mids and the highs in the track. So unless the mids and highs in my track (and to some extent the arrangement) bear any significant similarity to the one I'm referencing, what's the point of referencing it? So I switch between my track and a reference track to check the bass, and they seem to match up pretty well in terms of level and tone etc. But what does that even mean unless the rest of both tracks is identical?

sharke
I cannot find recordings to use as references. Don't get me wrong, there are a TON of tracks with production that blows me away. I just can't relate it very well to music that I'm working on myself. In fact I can't even think of a single artist or engineer that I strive to sound like.

Sharke, aren't you talking more about the style of your music ?  Or are you saying that your music resembles no other music out there ?   I know that, especially in the case of EDM, production and style can be in a pretty close relationship, but even then it's pretty easy to hear the difference between something that's well put together and something that isn't (if I were to offer you something I produced it would be instantly obvious that it was not worth listening to).  I don't like all types of music but I can still appreciate that a piece is well produced even if it's in a style I'm not crazy about.  And it often happens that I'll be blown away by a piece that I normally wouldn't like (like rap or death metal with a lot of screaming) when the arrangement and production are impressively done.
 
I see the use of reference tracks as a way of seeing how one's music will 'fit in' amongst other pieces of similar style and hence what effect it will have on others who listen to that style.  Imagine a radio station playing a style of music that you consider to be relevant to your own.  At the very least, you'd want your piece to not stick out because it sounds bad.  A level up would be something that others find musically interesting followed by something that is interesting and is also really well produced.  Even if a lot of people know nothing about music and its production, I think they still have some sort of sense of what is interesting and well done, and what isn't.