Steve Albini talks about some of his recording techniques.mp4 

you prolly dont care but if you are stoned like me during the covid times you can stream pretty much all the latest series on instaflixxer. Have been watching with my brother these days :)

@Luke Lennon Definitely, I've been using Instaflixxer for years myself :)

Bob?! Old Paint!

In Utero is bizarre. One year I think it kinda sucks then a year later I think it's brilliant... And btw a lot of why it's good comes down to the Albini hard-edged noise for the guitars on there, set against the slapback ambient drums. The songwriting does lack in places though. Kurt himself admitted that.

yes, he's only talking philosophy, not technique

seeing as most music is being heard through headphones these days, i disagree. i think mono sounds pretty bad with headphones, and unless you have nice speakers, mono can sound very muddy. stereo gives more clarity. i think mono works for older bands because that's was a big part of the sound back then. everything was recorded on vintage instruments and mics etc. and recorded in mono, that was the sound. i think a modern sounding rock group recording with more new age gear wouldn't sound nearly as good in mono as band back then did. i actually didn't like the vinyl version of Adore. I think The Smashing Pumpkins are a perfect example of a band that thrives on stereo, due many of their songs having a grandios production. Tonight Tonight wouldn't be the same in mono...

8R014V Hey thanks for the civil response on my original comment! It's hard to have civil debates when it comes to musical preferences. First, I agree with you about listening to mono on good quality headphones. When it comes to headphones, I prefer a stereo mix. I think, in my humble opinion that a good mono record should be heard on a stereo system that has a "mono" switch (Like my Kenwood Model Eleven II). Mono also sounds best when you're listening to a live album, especially live albums from the 60s. A good example is the Rolling Stones "Got Live if you Want It" LP. I have both stereo & mono versions of that album, and I must say the stereo version is hard to listen to because all you can hear is the music on one side, and the screaming crowds on the other side. It's even more hard to listen to with headphone....But, the mono version sounds just right. I also must disagree about the Adore LP, of course I like the album in stereo, and the Pumpkins do shine in stereo, but I think the fact they decided to release the vinyl version of Adore in mono was a brilliant move on their part. I just think it was like listening to Adore for the first time when I first got the LP version. Adore was clearly a synth/electronic heavy album, and I think it sounded good in mono. Anyway, I'm glad you replied man, I love talking about music!

***** yeah, i like to keep things civil on youtube, especially when I'm talking with other people who clearly are knowledgeable with what they're talking about. I do agree it was definitely a good idea to make a mono vinyl release for Adore, it's always cool to hear a song in a different way whether it be mono, stereo, or a remastered version. I guess for me being a big Pumpkins fan, and used to them in stereo I personally didn't care for it as much in mono, having said that I did listen to it on headphones though, so perhaps i'll need to listen sometime with my speakers. I definitely like a lot of oldies in mono though.

***** I know those early Stones and Beatles albums, the stereo mix was pretty botched since they were recorded with a mono mix in mind.. I like stereo recordings because you have two ears, and when done right it best emulates hearing a band live. Your ears can never hear the same sound at the exact same time.

***** K 1: You don't need a reel to reel to sound good. You need no electronic drums and no autotune. The digital opens the options and if you get a REALLY good engineer (Ours records on digital but believes in natural sounds aside from a noisy amp... So he obviously uses the guitar rig to clear that. But he WILL NOT pitch correct or give the drums an electronic sound...) Reel to reels are great but the editing is a PITA unless you drop it into digital. 2: With the mono? Just no IMO... It's not full sounding and kind of sounds dead. Recording the guitar twice and panning both tracks to opposite sides is SUCH an improvement. Sugar sugar, Yummy Yummy Yummy, some of the who recordings and what not... It just doesn't fill out. And the guitar isn't filled out enough to match the drums making them sound like snapping rather than drums. You can get a GREAT sound if you use 2 over heads and a bass and snare drum mic for drums, stereo guitar, easy on the bass (Which you can't hardly hear with a mono guitar for the same reasons the drums are too thin and clicky sounding.), No autotune on the vocals. Ever. In a million years. (Out of tune and no autotune.) and just go easy. Our engineer started with reel to reels but still sounds great with digital. Drums are always live sounding (He doesn't do a whole lot of soundproofing around them) and the guitar is soundproofed but if the amp gets too noisy then he uses the guitar rig app and gets it close to the actual sound of the amp. Then vocally it's a dead room area for sound. I agree some of the OVER PRODUCTION of songs are annoying (5 seconds of summer for example would probably sound MUCH better if they weren't produced in a pop sound... Well and some of the songs are a bit cheesy but the drums are edited to sound electronic, The bass is upped WAY too much... But I dunno at least you can hear it... And the vocals are obviously autotuned.)

Uh?

...It might have been listenable? Look, it's a tool box - you choose a producer to suit the session, in the same way you would choose a guitar to choose the sound. Eno is different to Albini. But neither are worse or better than the other. Different. Not better.

@@soundguyldn Imagine..... wanting to listen to Coldplay hahaha

"industry standard" is antithetical to SA's method, as he explains here

+TheOldOakSyndicate this was always the case, there where always "lazy" artists, long before digital, long before even recording was possible onto wax cylinders. digital recordings are not cold and harsh (if the engineer knows what they are doing), sure in the 1970's they where quite hard/cold sounding, because of bad anti-aliasing and low bit/sample rates, but comparing todays digital tools with the 1970's is like comparing that wax cylinder gramaphone with a technics 1210. good artists + good engineer = great recordings, regardless of whether its done digitally or straight onto tape

+TheOldOakSyndicate I've recorded and mastered music with computer programs and it's still about as much work. You still have to use an analog mixer before the signal gets recorded onto the computer digitally, you still need to figure out what parts of the song to cut, how to reduce hiss or noise, how to eq things properly, level things, mix the multi tracks of the instruments so that they sound natural and perfect, whats mics to use and mic placement, what rooms to use, etc. It's not as if the music magically becomes perfect when recorded and mixed digitally. Also, when music is recorded and mastered in mono, you're not getting the full spectrum of sound you would if it were in stereo. Sounds dont have the space they need to be properly heard. Mono also takes away the dimension of the sound. It sounds too flat.

j.m you are incorrect sir.Dgital recording is harsh,also it sounds small.Analog equipment from the past that is state of the art is way better .. Everytime .

no

Sometimes.

I agree with the versatility but haven't had good experience with rock or any other vocals personally. Each to their own, just found your comment interesting