Just 8 Tracks, 1", tape. Are you brave enough? (DAPTONE)

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by Arny

Dear Bob,
When did the 3M's machines start being used at Abbey Raod (EMI)

I believe it was upon delivery of the TG desk.

/Dave

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by Arny

I might add I hate modern speakers they lack sensitivity, they require loads of power to drive them, and change their sound depending on the volume being used, ATC SCM200's are not my choice at all.

Tony,

They have there own specialized amplification so sensitivity isn't an issue. Having tested many studio monitors, I'd agree that these are among the most transparent. If you don't like transparent there's always Tannoy.

/Dave

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by Arny

Dear Bob,
Apart from the fact that every time I have been to or read about EMI studios either in the "Kemps Directory" or "Studio Sound" the main make of machine that has been used mostly throughout the life of Abbey Road, has been the Studer, other machines may have been in, but for how long ?.

But I, being a person willing to learn:
When did the 3M's machines start being used at Abbey Raod (EMI) and when were they pulled out of EMI.

I think it's important to note that there were many factors which decided which gear was used in major studios. In the old days, it was all about the sound. It's my impression that politics and things like "we'd like a tape counter" shifted the emphasis away from sound to other features. Knobs per quid became important for desks rather than sound, thus the shift from Helios to Neve.

[thenoodle]

Originally Posted by Arny

When you walk into a recording room and listen to the instrument to be recorded you listen with both ears, so it made sense to me to obtain the same sound as I was hearing, apart from the Bass & Bass drum, I always used two Mics on every instrument.....I would ask them "Would you like me to try and remove the Doppler effect from the Hammond's Leslie”

I think Swedien tracks that way too. Every approach is valid. Even those folks who want to limit to 8 tracks.

I personally come from the school of "serve the song". Which in the old days meant lots of submixing and twin machines to get past the 4 and 8 track barrier.

Tons of magical stuff made then that way too. Records that in no way follow say, the Motown everybody-in-the-neighborhood-in-front-of-a-mic-at-the-same-time approach.

For example... speaking of leslies, one hit song from 1967 is called "Wear Your Love Like Heaven" by Donovan.

That one was built more in the way I personally "built" songs in those days.

Two four tracks were in the room. Drums, bass, click, and ref rhythm guitar were recorded on the first machine and then submixed over to a track on the second machine (minus click).

And then ping pong overdubs were done back and forth between the two machines until the song was finished... coming in at 28 tracks (built between two four track machines mind you).

The b3 was added late in the overdubs and consisted of the leslie being set to "12" (very very very loud) and mic'd from about six feet away with two mics at the top area and one mic down at the lower rotor.

That was captured in mono and within the song, is one of my favorite b3 sounds from those days... or any days.

Pre-planning to come up with that final record was certainly paramount.

But that record is one of many that shows that in those days.... no one... NO ONE.. was limited to only the number of tracks on the machine itself.

Pre-planning can mean many different things and I just like to chime in every so often so that the "kids" of today really fully understand that millions of those oldies famous hits were NOT simply slapped onto 4 tracks or 8 tracks in one massively-planned, magic session.

Now that being said... I personally think attention to the "arrangemment"... via some sort of focused study... is vitally helpful for recording anything anywhere.

Arrangements have probably been my most favorite area of study. Even more than my journey through tape recording since the 50s.

[Arny]

Originally Posted by Dave_Amels

Tony,

They have there own specialized amplification so sensitivity isn't an issue. Having tested many studio monitors, I'd agree that these are among the most transparent. If you don't like transparent there's always Tannoy.

/Dave

Dear Dave,
But only with "REDS" in a hung "Lockwood Universal" cabinet, you should try to find a pair to listen to one day, they don't lie they just tell the truth. it was the guvener in the 60's

There are so many trying to capture that old British sound by using the wrong monitors, Lockwoods with REDS coupled to a Valve Quad 11 was the business, apart from the fact the the Naivety is no longer there, so things can never be the same.

Best Regards

Tony
Tony Arnold (Director),
Ampex-UK
anthony@ampex-uk.com

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by thenoodle

Pre-planning to come up with that final record was certainly paramount.

But that record is one of many that shows that in those days.... no one... NO ONE.. was limited to only the number of tracks on the machine itself.

Pre-planning can mean many different things and I just like to chime in every so often so that the "kids" of today really fully understand that millions of those oldies famous hits were NOT simply slapped onto 4 tracks or 8 tracks in one massively-planned, magic session.

There's always room for drugs or shall we say serendipity.

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by Arny

Dear Dave,
But only with "REDS" in a hung "Lockwood Universal" cabinet, you should try to find a pair to listen to one day, they don't lie they just tell the truth. it was the guvener in the 60's

Wouldn't mind hearing this at all.

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by thenoodle

For example... speaking of leslies, one hit song from 1967 is called "Wear Your Love Like Heaven" by Donovan.

Focus - great Leslie

[tubehead]

Originally Posted by Arny

Dear Adam,
Again with all due respects do not expect me to take on board one mans opinion even though in yours and few others, he is God, in the end I can only take on board either a team of top engineers
or the likes of
George Martin, Glyn Johns, is Henry's track record comparible to the likes of the afformentioned.

I will also add that I met Henry many years ago in Paris, I also took note.

Don't get me wrong I have also carried out many repairs for Lenny Kravitz, and hold a great respect for Henry's work, but not enough to except his opinion on which recorder I should use.

I might add I hate modern speakers they lack sensitivity, they require loads of power to drive them, and change their sound depending on the volume being used, ATC SCM200's are not my choice at all.

"One mans meat is anothers poison"

Best Regards

Tony
Tony Arnold (Director),
Ampex-UK
anthony@ampex-uk.com

Haha you make me laugh, Henry "God" lol... He'd love that; his studio is built into a church after all. He's not my god, He's just got great musicality and a good set of ears. The ATC SCM200's are quite revealing especially in his room.

-Adam

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by tubehead

Haha you make me laugh, Henry "God" lol... He'd love that; his studio is built into a church after all. He's not my god, He's just got great musicality and a good set of ears. The ATC SCM200's are quite revealing especially in his room.

-Adam

They sounded great when they were installed at the Edison location too. I think I like them better than the 300 liter / 15" cabinets.

[tubehead]

Originally Posted by Dave_Amels

They sounded great when they were installed at the Edison location too. I think I like them better than the 300 liter / 15" cabinets.

I wish I had been around for the Edison setup.

[Arny]

Originally Posted by tubehead

Haha you make me laugh, Henry "God" lol... He'd love that; his studio is built into a church after all. He's not my god, He's just got great musicality and a good set of ears. The ATC SCM200's are quite revealing especially in his room.

-Adam

Dear Adam,
My last studio in the UK was also in a Church, but I prefer to call it a Chapel. it was in the Garden of my home,

Best Regards

Tony
Tony Arnold (Director),
Ampex-UK
anthony@ampex-uk.com

[kats]

Originally Posted by Dave_Amels

True... But don't the majors require recall and stems and wouldn't using this type of studio require that the band actually plays well enough?

Well the majors require TV mixes, vox up, vox down, and vox only. They may require mix changes which means YOU may have to do recalls, but they don't care how you do it as long as you do it.

So basically you need your vocals on their own track(s). Normally you won't get a call for "more toms" or "more tambo" etc, but more general things like more bass, louder drums etc.

Of course the band will need to be good players, but I really doubt ******s would be interested in the type of studio you talk about and the type of musicians and genre of music that would be attracted to a set up you describe would not be looking for the same production treatment that is prevalent today.

It's a niche market for sure.

The main thing is to not get stuck in dogma. In my case (running a 16tk studio) we surf the analog wave as long as we can. As soon as a big wave comes by and knocks us down, it's dump to PT time and we dog paddle back to the beach.

[Dave_Amels]

Originally Posted by kats

Well the majors require TV mixes, vox up, vox down, and vox only. They may require mix changes which means YOU may have to do recalls, but they don't care how you do it as long as you do it.

So basically you need your vocals on their own track(s). Normally you won't get a call for "more toms" or "more tambo" etc, but more general things like more bass, louder drums etc.

I already make TV mixes as a matter of course so that's not a change... likewise with the slightly different vocal mixes. Of course there are recalls and then there are recalls. I guess it depends on the quality of your recall sheets and your ability to match mixes.

Originally Posted by kats

Of course the band will need to be good players, but I really doubt ******s would be interested in the type of studio you talk about and the type of musicians and genre of music that would be attracted to a set up you describe would not be looking for the same production treatment that is prevalent today.

No... I'm afraid ******s would want to use this too. I'm not sure how many qualified musicians are on majors now. This is a problem in my mind.

Originally Posted by kats

It's a niche market for sure.

Probably more of a niche of a niche. I'm not sure offering studio services could actually be called a market now.

Originally Posted by kats

The main thing is to not get stuck in dogma. In my case (running a 16tk studio) we surf the analog wave as long as we can. As soon as a big wave comes by and knocks us down, it's dump to PT time and we dog paddle back to the beach.

I realized this as well and I'm pretty sure this may be the biggest stumbling block for me. I'd be more inclined to kick the client out at that point. I don't think I'm cut out for this. Thanks for your insight. It has reinforced my concerns.

Best,

/Dave