Sinatra's Vocal Chain

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by steveyraff

At a studio I interned in once, the engineer showed me a Universal Audio preamp and said something like 'Yea, in later years, Sinatra used U.A stuff'. I was always very sceptical of that remark. If anyone can educate me further on this statement?

Sinatra owned his own 610 console at home, and Putnam would drop whatever it was he was doing when he called...something to that extent.

To the best of my knowledge, UA never sold mainframes (the additional chassis and controls for the console) as a commercial product. Complete consoles were not offered either as a commercial product either. Which means that just about all UA tube 610, 610-A consoles were all still one off custom creations built to meet the needs of United and Western studios. However, a few other consoles were custom built by UA using these components--I can think of four: Ray Charles had one, Hawaii Calls (Webbley Edwards) had one for their TV show (this one is at Ocean Way now), and Valentine Recording also had one, and Frank Sinatra had one in Palm Springs.

UA WebZine "Compression Obsession" August 04 | History of the 610 Preamplifier with Paul McManus

[PRobb]

Originally Posted by cschuby

Just found this today in the "Sessions with Sinatra" book (which I am reading as fast as I can find the time!). The description is from John Palladino who worked at Capitol studios during this period. He says (page 112):

"For a typical mono session, I'd use a (RCA)44 split on reeds, placed low (around 18 inches off the floor) to get that nice 'fat' sax sound. Then, off the side of this mic, I'd use another 44, or a Neumann U47 for the trombones. Now, above the trombones were the trumpets, which were picked up by the trombone mic, but I'd still give them their own mic as well. The piano would be miked (I favored the 44 for piano); the drums would have one RCA 77 over the top of the kit, and for the acoustic bass, I'd either use a 639, or an Altec contact mic that could be strapped to the bass. The guitar got its own mic as well. Miking strings along with so much rhythm and brass could be a problem, because the sound of the strings just got overwhelmed by the other instruments. Of course, at that point we couldn't record them separately and cut them in later, so we just dealt with it."

They "dealt" with it pretty well I'd say......

VEry interesting.
Thanx.

[PRobb]

Originally Posted by vernier

Nat Cole, Judy Garland, Dean Martin, Peggy Lee, Shirley Bassey,
Frank Sinatra, etc ...all great sounding records.

.

I see that all the time in old studio shots. How the bleep do you run tape pancakes with NO FLANGES?!?!?!? No top flange is scary enough, but it looks like there's no bottom on either. Did they ever rewind?

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by PRobb

I see that all the time in old studio shots. How the bleep do you run tape pancakes with NO FLANGES?!?!?!? No top flange is scary enough, but it looks like there's no bottom on either. Did they ever rewind?

i always think that too, but i'm sure there must be some sort of rational explanation for it.

[Bob Olhsson]

Bill Putnum never built consoles because he didn't want to get into possible financial liability in the event a console failed during a thousand dollar an hour recording session. Remember that at the time virtually all recording sessions were live with all union players, singers and engineers. Studios were expected to pay everybody's salary for any time lost to a technical malfunction.

The 610 modules also got mixed reviews from several people I've talked to who worked at United/Western back then.

[JIRI PASKA]

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The 610 modules also got mixed reviews from several people I've talked to who worked at United/Western back then.

always a pleasure to read your posts Bob.

regarding what you said, not that they bare much resemblance to the original modules, but in a sense, they still do

i sold my 2-610 a long time ago, but i'll say that the LA-610 is a perfectly fine and well thought of product.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by PRobb

Did they ever rewind?

I would guess it was rare. They kept all the outtakes and there were no overdubs. Were those machines capable of library wind?

I reckon there's a reason those decks are perfectly horizontal!


Gregory Scott - ubk

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by u b k

I would guess it was rare. They kept all the outtakes and there were no overdubs. Were those machines capable of library wind?

I reckon there's a reason those decks are perfectly horizontal!


Gregory Scott - ubk

a 388 is horizontal too and it'll chop one's head off if the reels aren't locked
the only explanation i can see is that, if there was any rewinding being done, it was done as slowly as possible, or maybe the machine didn't reach the rewind speeds ppl are used to seeing and that makes locking the reels a crucial surviving measure...

[PRobb]

Originally Posted by retractablezing

a 388 is horizontal too and it'll chop one's head off if the reels aren't locked
the only explanation i can see is that, if there was any rewinding being done, it was done as slowly as possible, or maybe the machine didn't reach the rewind speeds ppl are used to seeing and that makes locking the reels a crucial surviving measure...

Looks like an Ampex 350. Those things could rewind plenty fast. If anyone can explain the no flanges thing, it's something I've always been curious about.

[Bob Olhsson]

That's an Ampex 200, their original machine.

The 1940s German magnetophones they were copied from used what we called pancakes so the first generation of American tape machines followed suit. It remained pretty common practice for 1/4" tape until the mid '70s.

[vernier]

Originally Posted by steveyraff

At a studio I interned in once, the engineer showed me a Universal Audio preamp and said something like 'Yea, in later years, Sinatra used U.A stuff'. I was always very sceptical of that remark. If anyone can educate me further on this statement?

That'd be the Reprise years, 1960s at United Western studios, which was all UA gear.

[roman manlord]

Not sure of the chain exactly, but I know it included unfiltered camels and bourbon.

[networkresearch]

On one of his albums, which I can't remember, but it does state that he was using a Sony C37.
Jonathan

[Steve G]

Originally Posted by networkresearch

On one of his albums, which I can't remember, but it does state that he was using a Sony C37.
Jonathan

Never heard that, but it's quite possible. We have a lot of C37's at Capitol, 10 I think. A very underrate mic, one that I forget about all the time. A little noisy for vocals, but nice on drums, and even guitars.

Steve

[rty5150]

Originally Posted by JIRI PASKA

i love this thread!!!

[doug hazelrigg]

Originally Posted by Steve G

It is true that EMI no longer owns the Tower, but Capitol does have a very long lease, and no one has any plans of closing the building or the studios. We are very much alive, and probably one of the busiest studios in the world.

Steve

Great news

Thanks for setting the record straight

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by JJAM

I'm afraid that I often don't get the chain threads that pop up. What makes a certain singer's vocal sound so good is...their voice. I've recorded great singers with crap mics and they still sound good. I've recorded really bad singers with great mics and they still sound dreadful.

Sinatra's got chunks of guys like you in his stool

and we all agree with your point.....but pointing it out goes in that useless category of "Use your ears" and the like. My puppy gets that.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by JJAM

I'm afraid that I often don't get the chain threads that pop up. What makes a certain singer's vocal sound so good is...their voice. I've recorded great singers with crap mics and they still sound good. I've recorded really bad singers with great mics and they still sound dreadful.

Well, yes. Recording a really bad singer with a great mic gives you a really great recording of a really bad singer - it lets you hear just HOW bad that singer really is. What's so hard to grasp about that?

[PRobb]

As gearslutz, it's interesting to learn how these records were made.

However if the question is about how to get the Frank Sinatra vocal sound, then obviously the only relevant answer is that you take a microphone and place it in front of Frank Sinatra.

[Bob Olhsson]

There was a priceless moment at a demo of some fashionable monitor speakers here in Nashville. After playing a wide array of outstanding recordings from the 1980s and later, they put on Sinatra at the Sands. Everybody in the room's jaw dropped at how much more engaging the audio sounded than everything else we had just heard.

I couldn't resist pointing out that Wally Heider told me Sinatra was singing through his gold Shure 546 and that he had mixed that album using Altec 604s!

The Quincy Jones arrangements played by the Count Basie band didn't exactly hurt...

[PRobb]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The Quincy Jones arrangements played by the Count Basie band didn't exactly hurt...

Yeah- that might have had something to do with it.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by PRobb

However if the question is about how to get the Frank Sinatra vocal sound, then obviously the only relevant answer is that you take a microphone and place it in front of Frank Sinatra.

Except that wasn't the question, and even if it were, the question would remain: *which* Frank Sinatra vocal sound?

Because that's the rub: throughout his career the man did a lot of records in front of a lot of different mics, and there's a pretty wide variety of sonic textures in there. I know it's a bit of a precious idea at gearslutz that only the source is responsible for the sound, but my own experience doesn't comport with this... and apparently neither does Sinatra's catalog.

So when asking specifically about the 50's Capitol Sound, there's something there that is inextricably linked with the room and the gear used to capture what was in it. That's my favorite era of Frank's sound as well, it oozed with warmth and clarity. Huge voice, music big but in its place.

It's humbling really, what they did back then vs. what most folks are doing now. Not just the recordings, but the ensembles, the arrangements, the style. The rule back then was 'music for adults', something sorely missing in the pop music landscape of today. It's a bummer, to see all the energy and money and hype that goes into pumping up a sweet but marginal talent like Taylor Swift when there are so many other approaches that could be taken, that in fact have been taken.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[PRobb]

Originally Posted by u b k

It's humbling really, what they did back then vs. what most folks are doing now. Not just the recordings, but the ensembles, the arrangements, the style. The rule back then was 'music for adults', something sorely missing in the pop music landscape of today. It's a bummer, to see all the energy and money and hype that goes into pumping up a sweet but marginal talent like Taylor Swift when there are so many other approaches that could be taken, that in fact have been taken.


Gregory Scott - ubk

Amen, brother!

[cschuby]

Originally Posted by u b k

Except that wasn't the question, and even if it were, the question would remain: *which* Frank Sinatra vocal sound?

Because that's the rub: throughout his career the man did a lot of records in front of a lot of different mics, and there's a pretty wide variety of sonic textures in there. I know it's a bit of a precious idea at gearslutz that only the source is responsible for the sound, but my own experience doesn't comport with this... and apparently neither does Sinatra's catalog.

So when asking specifically about the 50's Capitol Sound, there's something there that is inextricably linked with the room and the gear used to capture what was in it. That's my favorite era of Frank's sound as well, it oozed with warmth and clarity. Huge voice, music big but in its place.

It's humbling really, what they did back then vs. what most folks are doing now. Not just the recordings, but the ensembles, the arrangements, the style. The rule back then was 'music for adults', something sorely missing in the pop music landscape of today. It's a bummer, to see all the energy and money and hype that goes into pumping up a sweet but marginal talent like Taylor Swift when there are so many other approaches that could be taken, that in fact have been taken.


Gregory Scott - ubk

I couldn't agree more!! I triple that amen!!

[jook]

Originally Posted by JIRI PASKA

So did Sinatra have a monitor of some sort, a wedge or foldback speaker, in a setup like this? Or perhaps it's just coming over the main loudspeakers in the live room (and going back into the instrument mics)?

[Karloff70]

Quadruple amen, ye ol Nemesis

[vernier]

.

Swing Easy! / Songs For Young Lovers

A Swingin' Affair!

Come Fly With Me

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by jook

So did Sinatra have a monitor of some sort, a wedge or foldback speaker, in a setup like this? Or perhaps it's just coming over the main loudspeakers in the live room (and going back into the instrument mics)?

People didn't use monitors. They didn't use stage monitors either. Things actually sounded a lot better and more in tune without them!

[Mo HGTR]

Here's a great pic of history I thought I would add to this thread. Frank and nat sang on this particalur mic a few times. If I can dig up any pics,I will add them later. It's in great condition and I still use it in my studio quite often. Never modified and sounds amazing! P.S,it's not for sale. Great thread ladies and gentlemanthumbsup