The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tags: , ,

Sinatra & the Impact of Sound Dynamic Microphones
Old 19th May 2003
  #91
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

There was always a push for better sounding, more transparent limiters. It's just that they were used as protection for the tape machine rather than as a creative element.

Remember that prior to the mid '60s overdubbing was forbidden by the A.F. of M. These folks were recording everything at once with no chance of going back and tweaking levels. Remixes off tape were avoided because of the loss of quality from a tape generation.

The EMI stuff was highly compressed because it was being run through multiple tape generations and the compression was a way to keep down the tape hiss. It was considered a necessary evil more a cool effect.
Old 19th May 2003
  #92
Gear Maniac
 
Sir Bob's Avatar
 

I glad someone mentioned Ella Fitzgerald earlier. She is another singer with amazing breath control and an understated style of expression. A female Frank.
Old 19th May 2003
  #93
Gear Head
 

Maybe there is something about 600 ohm transmission systems as somebody said earlier. In my early training in the days of valve amps and transformers, you had to ensure correct termination when you plugged things up. Jackfields had loads of 600 ohm holes on them so you could make sure an output was terminated: you shunted 600 ohms across it and if it dropped 3dB it was already terminated, if it dropped 6dB it wasn't!

Valves had such robust output capabilities that they could drive anything, but the frequency response would only be optimised into a 600 ohm load. Transformers were their natural partners. People get all upset about what transformers are supposed to do to the signal these days, but a well designed transformer introduces negligible distortion compared to a valve, and can even be an ally by giving you "free" noiseless gain! They don't seem to be so useful with transistors, though. It was much easier to use the "ratio of 10 or more" output impedance to input impedance and now nobody needs to bother about matching or power transfer.

Maybe in the days when mics were so expensive and gear a bit more demanding, more care was taken to get everything right, and that's one reason why Frankie et al still sound right today.

Still wondering if anybody knows anything about Louis Jordan
Old 19th May 2003
  #94
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
Prior to the mid '60s overdubbing was forbidden by the A.F. of M. These folks were recording everything at once with no chance of going back and tweaking levels.

The EMI stuff was highly compressed because it was being run through multiple tape generations and the compression was a way to keep down the tape hiss.
Amazing, Bob. So the British could use overdubs and ping-pong tracks over from one tape machine to another, and Americans couldnt, because of unions. The unions were even worse back then than they are today. SEEE! The good old days werent always so good.

HMmm but WAIT... Maybe by restricting tape generations and making the music live to two or three track, and using the very best engineers who layed their reputations on the line to get things EXTREMELY right from the start... and putting the edge on the live performances and making everyone work at their very best every take... just maybe this is a big part of the classic nature of Sinatra's and other folks recordings from the 50's - 70's.

And one step further... in this Sinatra Sessions book, which is semi-chronological, the first part of it is about the real early Sinatra years, when things went straight to lacquer disk (the actual 78, 45, or 33RPM disk) - Not even TAPE. Talk about "LIVE"... Now thats pressure, and almost ZERO generations!

Dave
P.S. DOUG - I can't say I know a thing about Louis Jordan. Ive heard of the Jordanairs but thats about it! Ill keep my ears out on here and elsewhere
Old 19th May 2003
  #95
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Amazing thread ...

When you work with artists who can perform "first take" anytime, that could help the music in any possible field, including sound, vibes etc ...

I mean a singer who has that kind of technique would focus on the sound of his own voice. That goes for orchestra, musicians etc ...

interesting bob,

as always



malice
Old 19th May 2003
  #96
Lives for gear
 
Ted Nightshade's Avatar
 

Doug Ring sez:"People get all upset about what transformers are supposed to do to the signal these days, but a well designed transformer introduces negligible distortion compared to a valve, and can even be an ally by giving you "free" noiseless gain!"

Either I've never yet had the chance to work with a well designed transformer, which I'm doubting, although I'm open to new experiences! for sure, or this don't really fly with me, to the moon, or anywhere else...

Healthy valves implemented well can sound so clean and undistorted, regardless of spec, that you start looking around for some trannies to fuzz things a bit- or analog tape does fine! I go looking, anyway, when I'm not going for obnoxiously clean with everything mostly all valves.

Or maybe you're talking specs and I'm talking sound? Or maybe there's something wonderful in store for me when I finally get to work with a well-designed transformer? I am a sucker for fine tube amps with sweet output transformers, whether I want it squeaky clean or am cultivating distortion...


That's a trip about the AF of M, what would we be listening to now if overdubs were still forbidden stateside? I'm betting it would be better listening.
Old 19th May 2003
  #97
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Derr
I can't say I know a thing about Louis Jordan. Ive heard of the Jordanairs but thats about it! Ill keep my ears out on here and elsewhere
I was livid about only learning about Louis Jordan after 30 years in the pop music business. He was a sax player in the Chick Webb band who started his own small combo and was a huge star during most of the 1940s.

When you first hear Louis Jordan, it suddenly comes crashing home that Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Bill Haley were all nothing but imitations of Louis Jordan who was the REAL father of rock and roll after you strip away all of the pretentious hype of the rock "press."
Old 19th May 2003
  #98
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

To be fair, a lot of people cheated on the union rules including some of those we've talked about and everybody at Motown. Still in many cases it was all about nailing the final mono record live. People who couldn't do that couldn't get very much work.

While the Beatles WERE overdubbing everything, the British musicians union required a full 20+ piece string section that were sitting behind a curtain reading the newspaper the time I visited Top of the Pops with Jimmy Ruffin and Stevie Wonder. THAT blew my mind!

I can't be too down on the union because of how musicians were treated before there was a union and how engineers have been treated since most of the recording engineers' unions went away during the 1970s. Nobody wants to pay more for anything than they need to and everybody's run into an occasional Son Of the Boss who was just as unfair as the occasional union geek. Unions can be good and they can be bad exactly like the government or any corporation can be.
Old 19th May 2003
  #99
Jr. Gear Slut 2nd class
 
chessparov's Avatar
 

The "standard" three sessions per day, and an album in four days seems
to have gone a long way in keeping performance standards up.
It would have robbed us of the "Mixerman Diary" though. :-)

Chris
Old 20th May 2003
  #100
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Chess

I'm probably the one person who has never read Mixerman, but has met him. Hows that for Bass Ackwards?

Dave

P.S. OH... AND on the same star studded night, my name was added to the Walk of Fame on Hollywood Boulevard, No lie!

Course I did it with magic marker on a blank star but....
Old 20th May 2003
  #101
Jr. Gear Slut 2nd class
 
chessparov's Avatar
 

Wink

I have an idea who MM is (REALLY!), and could probably find out with a certain phone call, but out of respect for this person, and secondarily, the "mystique" of it all it's cool not to know more.

For those of us in "budget" land, there seems to be several microphones that sound reminiscient of the mighty RCA 44 or 77,
based on some research of mine. It appears like the EV 666, and EV15 sound pretty "ribbonish" for dynamics on vocals.
(mainly based on studying RAP posts)

Just picked up a pair(!) of EV RE16's (RE15 w/pop screen) for the princely sum of $74 on e-bay. Will be interesting to try them out.
They were "good enough" for the Elvis Comeback Special!
The bad news on the 666 is that Electro-Voice evidently doesn't have replacement elements. In any case, for someone shooting for that "Columbia" style of vocal tone, this could be a smart way to go.
Then all you'd need is the singer...

Chris

P.S. Wonder how the EV 666 compares to the RE15 on vocals?
Old 20th May 2003
  #102
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

666s sounded remarkably like 77s.

RE-15/16 are great mikes, much better than the RE-10/11 that look the same and are lots more common.
Old 20th May 2003
  #103
Jr. Gear Slut 2nd class
 
chessparov's Avatar
 

Thanks for the confirmation Bob.

If it wasn't for how reasonable the Stephen Sank repairs and/or
mod's are pricewise, getting a EV 666 would be a no-brainer for me.
(big fan of that kind of vocal microphone sound)

I'd just hate to wind up with one where the element goes out soon after
getting it, whereas EV can still fully service the RE15 & 16's.
Tempting nonetheless.

Chris
Old 20th May 2003
  #104
Gear Head
 

Hi Ted,

I was meaning that valves can't generally reach the same performance figures as transistors or op-amps, and that any distortion a transformer introduces would be masked by the greater artifacts from the valve. So I was talking specs in the main, but also giving a nod to the fact that people seem to like those artifacts for some sounds. You're about the only person I've heard say they use valves for the clean sound and mess things up with transistors; most people would be the other way round :D

Working for a broadcaster this last quarter century, it was hard for me to hear gear that didn't have transformers, and there's no doubt that they make gear immune to lots of interference problems. Some early transistor mic amps needed transformers on the input just to handle long cable runs without instability, and we used to use big transformers on output devices for outside broadcasts where you'd need to push a signal down a couple of miles of copper wire!

In the rush for miniaturisation and cost-cutting, however, the transformer was one of the first casualties. A decent mic input transformer starts at around $100 these days and that's a lot more than the cost of a fully-loaded circuit board. And besides that, the weight of the things needs stronger chassis to support them, and metalwork is the thing that pushes manufacturing costs up these days. But they still have a sound that people like, as a lot of the sought-after vintage pres are transformer-equipped. I'm surprised that you haven't liked what you've heard from them, but hey - whatever does it for you!

So...what's all this got to do with Frankie? well, I guess I'm saying that in that era all gear was big and expensive and temperamental and the preserve of trained engineers. They wouldn't want their gear to screw up a session (especially with some of the connections Frankie had ) so it would have been checked over before every session. It's easy to forget nowadays when you just whack something into a DAW that we used to have to clean and then line up a tape machine before every session - levels and azimuth. You didn't leave anything to chance.

In those days there just weren't project studios, and going in to make a record was much more of an event. And since almost every pop record had an orchestra, you simply couldn't keep them waiting while you spent the afternoon in the bar with your buddies.heh So although the sessions went much more quickly, everything was rehearsed and prepared in advance and the recording was really the culmination of all the work that went before, unlike today where often the song isn't even written before the band comes to the studio. Then it was a case of capturing the moment, whereas now the studio has become a part of the process and there is no "moment".

I'm not saying the way we work today is better or worse. But how many of today's recordings will still be getting this amount of attention in 50 years time?
Old 20th May 2003
  #105
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Doug Ring
In the rush for miniaturisation and cost-cutting, however, the transformer was one of the first casualties.
It wasnt just for miniaturisation and cost cutting, either. People were dying to get rid of the "haze" and "roundness" of transformers. Personally I can remember back in the 70's that recording engineers were using the words "transformerless" with great pride, and paid MORE for it. Now of course you can have the most "hazeless" signal in the world, with all the high pointy edges, down to the low, low frequencies that can only be felt in the basement - all for the price of a 35 cent op amp.

"Then it was a case of capturing the moment, whereas now the studio has become a part of the process and there is no "moment". I'm not saying the way we work today is better or worse. But how many of today's recordings will still be getting this amount of attention in 50 years time?"

AMEN! That was really the thought that started this thread. Why does "THE CHAIRMAN" get played in between Kid Rock and Eminem in every pub, bar, and club in the country/world? Where would a wedding reception be, without a few Sinatra songs? Why did Saddam Hussein listen to Frank?? Why did I buy a book from AMAZON about Franks sessions?? Why also am I considering buying an old expensive tube mic, because Frank used it? <laughing>
Old 20th May 2003
  #106
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Doug Ring

In those days there just weren't project studios, and going in to make a record was much more of an event.
Funny, virtually every big rock star of the '60s and '70s had a home studio most people would die for today. Almost nothing memorable was ever produced in ANY of them and the artists wound up right back in commercial facilities because they found they NEEDED recording to be an event in order to get themselves motivated enough to come up with a truly great performance.
Old 20th May 2003
  #107
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Sounds convincing indeed.

But for a little light in the tunnels sake:
John Lennons "Imagine" I think was born and recorded in his home studio.
Old 20th May 2003
  #108
Jr. Gear Slut 2nd class
 
chessparov's Avatar
 

That's more the exception that proves the rule.
How many musicians are as creatively capable as Lennon was,
let alone trying to be the next Todd Rundgren?

In my even vaster ignorance, when starting to do home recordings,
it wasn't understood how the entire recording process is an instrument
unto itself. If more musicians would check their ego at the door of their
home studio, then they'd be much better off taking advantage of pro
studio facilities. Many times self-recording is like patting your belly and
rubbing your head at the same time. To record with someone else at the
helm for an important project certainly has its benefits.

I think it was a better method to go "direct" as much as possible,
rather than relying on overdubs, for most recordings.
More organic, more real.

Chrsi
Old 20th May 2003
  #109
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Sure,

when I started building a home studio I was intending to do all my crap alone, but meanwhile I discovered what fun it is to have passionate participants on my project.

Also that interaction between musicians as a benefit for a record can´t be questioned.

And maybe ( as I just assume ) even most relevant might be what concerns e.g. instruments with several strings. The influence of the strings among each other can not be reproduced when letting sound multi strings in the box. Same might count for the phenomenon of several instruments tracked in one room simultaneously.

The difference might be little, but as you guys might have noticed much better than me, in music little differnces can colour the big thing obviously.

Nevertheless, personally as not heading for a music history place I am absolutely thrilled by the sonics that can be achieved in todays li´l man´s studio. It will always be enough to give me great joy. I can´t even think of any material thing fascinating me that way. ( My motorbike of a kind that I had always been dreaming of, gathers dust ... )

If it mustn´t be exactly that genius and lifely like Beatles, Stones, Zep, J.J.Cale and co., tracking players / singers one by one can still yield wonderful results I believe.
Old 20th May 2003
  #110
Lives for gear
 
Ted Nightshade's Avatar
 

The event!

I have observed the phenomenon of scheduled spontanaeity, if I'm allowed anymore oxymorons. The players shuffle about their lives, knowing that on Wednesday afternoon they will be giving their full attention to a musical event, and there's something scorpionic about the way the energy ebbs and seethes underground and out of sight until the time arrives and everybody gets together and does their thing, then !

It strikes me that having a big orchestra on hand gives a session an knowledgable audience built in, you can obtain that gestalt inspiration that you can get on a good live gig, but is hard to achieve in isolation.

My interest is really going in the direction of live recording, the current album we're working on is all live in the livingroom, no overdubs, no phones, but it's still not the realie dealie without the audience. Man, you have to work so hard to get where you can go so easily with a good audience, all pertinent stars aligned and all systems go... stike !

But live recording to analog... what an undertaking! Wish I had a lot more of the old school skills.
Old 21st May 2003
  #111
The Distressor's "daddy"
 
Dave Derr's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by chessparov
Many times self-recording is like patting your belly and rubbing your head at the same time. To record with someone else at the helm for an important project certainly has its benefits.
I really think that if you want to be a songwriter musician, THEN WRITE SONGS AND PLAY MUSIC, DONT START LEARNING EQUIPMENT AND PUTTING TOGETHER YOUR OWN STUDIO!

Another quick rant here, one that I have let loose on other musician friends and acquantances.

Like Chess said, dividing your attention and energy into recording yourself seriously while trying to compose and perform seriously is one of the biggest mistakes modern musicians make, and I think it could account for the horrid quality of songs these days. Hell every teenager is playing with his POD and recording into his computer, rather than sitting there gritting out a well crafted song on an acoustic guitar.

I think its a LEFT BRAIN/RIGHT BRAIN THING. Trying to switch your concentration between something that is usually more technical (recording/engineering), to something creative is one way to be distracted and to start letting your medium and environment influence your art in an often irrelevant way. A song in my mind, shouldnt be influenced by your new microphone or effects processor. It should be self contained and beautiful in itself.

How many of us started out wanting to get equipment to record ourselves? Id bet it was a factor in like 95% of us. Look what happens. Soon you spend more time playing with and collecting gear, then you "help" record a friend, then next thing you know you are charging people and looking for a bigger space! <Laughing>

HOWEVER, if you simply use your home studio to get your ideas down without taking it too seriously - you have a chance. But really, a little cassette recorder is less distracting!

If you want to be a musician, dont think that owning your studio will be your "road" to fame and success. It will more likely "de-rail" you from your music, and deplete your bank account.
Old 21st May 2003
  #112
Gear Head
 

Quote:
virtually every big rock star of the '60s and '70s had a home studio most people would die for today
True, Bob: all the big players would have had something decent in their houses from the 60s onwards, but I would doubt whether that was the case in the 50s just because the gear was so esoteric. And they might have used them for writing, but wasn't it the case that they'd go into commercial facilities to actually make their records? I was really meaning bedroom studios where people beaver away for months in their spare time creating their personal visions. No reason why a great record shouldn't come out of them, but the process is completely different.

"Same might count for the phenomenon of several instruments tracked in one room simultaneously.

The difference might be little, but as you guys might have noticed much better than me, in music little differnces can colour the big thing obviously."

You're right, Ruphus: of course you get the stuff like the bass guitar rattling the snare wires or the sax resonating the piano strings. To some people, these are imperfections, to others they're the organic glue of a live session. It also depends on fashion - whether that's the prevalent sound of the day.

Many years ago I did a jazz session in a big barn of a studio. I used acoustic screens to get as much isolation of the instruments as possible, because it was the 70's and everything had to sound crisp and flat. As long as the keyboard player used his Wurlitzer piano, I could get that sound. But I remember being really disappointed when he switched to the Steinway grand on one number and all I seemed to get when I faded up the piano was the sound of the room and spill from the drums. It sounded like a bunch of guys playing in a live room. Guess which sound I prefer these days... heh

Ted, the old school skills aren't that hard if you've already got some mixing experience. There's not a whole lot of difference between taking something that's already been tracked and bringing it up on a board and getting a quick mix, and taking a dozen live mics, bringing them up on a board and...getting a quick mix. The thing you find with the live that you don't get with the pre-rec is that when you solo an instrument, there's some spill on it....or should we call it organic glue?!

People do obsess about isolation or seperation, but sometimes it's good to get a feel of the room that was being played in.
Old 21st May 2003
  #113
Lives for gear
 
sonic dogg's Avatar
Dave...I agree with you 100% on the Left brain/Right brain thing.A study I read some years back took this very much into account in relation to hearing and other functions. It was described as Objective/Subjective and differences between the two. How many of us while writing AND engineering our stuff have had a moment where we go over and over a part because we "THINK" its not good enough when in fact it might be perfect, but perhaps because of the amount of thought it takes to acquire the sound, we fail to allow ourselves the moment of Objective Listening, in order to really HEAR whats going on.
Lately, for me, I've been getting others to man the knobs whilst I become stupid talent, and find the tracks come much easier and have more of a flair to them than when I record alone.

Great thread BTW....
Old 21st May 2003
  #114
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

The left-brain/right-brain part is a lot of it. Most records today are completely off the deep end of the left brain approach. When you pick them apart, there's less wrong with them than anything previously done. The problem is that there is also almost nothing RIGHT about how they feel. My experience has been the secret to feel is the process you use to surmount the challenges. An old sage who I was privileged to know used to say "You can get more stinking from thinking than you can from drinking!"

I've also found it takes at least five times as long for an artist to produce themselves as it does for somebody else to produce them. This absolutely was the case with Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye. I think the same is true of engineer-producers. Switching between the left and right brain modes is never easy.

The fundamental purpose of a studio is to remove distractions from performing by controlling the environment. It isn't just a room full of gear that's typically used in studios. In many ways it's all about taking away any excuses or cop-outs that are standing in the way of a great performance. When you use the same studio and gear that countless great performances were done with, you no longer have any excuses for not "giving it up."
Old 21st May 2003
  #115
Lives for gear
 
matucha's Avatar
"the problem" of the last time is there are so many possibilities ;-). Rather then getting maximum from minimum, we are mostly go only shallow through vast amount of gear/instruments... OK I don't want to generalize it but I feel it and I feel it as bad thing.

I'm the one who loves rattle and imperfections and I like to use it in a creative way, it is almost as obsession with those characteristical sounds. Funny is I'm perfectionist in most other areas ;-)...
Old 21st May 2003
  #116
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

I ám not sure if you are right about the left / right thing of the brain (, cause as far as I know mathematics and creativity sit on the same section, respectively there have been late invetsigations that proved wrong the idea of maths and creativity to be contrary. Also many musicians seem to be good in maths...), but you are certainly right about distraction.

Sure would I like to be produced. Quite often when before musical decisions I would love to have someone with similar reception arround. Not because I couldn´t judge at all, but because being to deep in it while a producer´s / friend´s opinion can be like a step backwards for a distant look. And indeed performing and judging about a thing as a whole seems to need a different state of mind.

I have not been personally dead serious as songwriter ( it has rather always been the passion about sonics of the moment, whether from a nice guitar or gear ) and as ever since been fond of knobs and plugs / stereos it took me not too long to get addicted to studio stuff. On the long run I guess engineering and producing could be my main thing though. From what I have experienced with producing some friends it could well be. At least we had a good time, even a couple of days ago when I tortured two singers over ten hours long ( with little breaks naturally ).

Doug,
what you describe is definite and obvious without question. I was also thinking to the even more subtle influence of instruments or sole strings on each other assuming that the sound itself gets influenced when different sources meet. You know like when piano string sounds over lay, cancel or encrease each other. Maybe that sounds too esotheric, but if it ( yap, together with the percussive character and maybe other details ) makes the real thing so different from sample playing, the very subtle sounds "interreaction" in the live room might effect additionally.

BTW, I will have two girls here, both playing ( gut ) guitar and singing together. I have been thinking about how it shall be done. Planned to record them together in the room ( which is quite reflective and not soundproofed against noise from the yard. ) as a guide track and then recording each part separately in the booth. According to what is discussed here, it might well be that it could be benefitting to blend the isolated stuff with the room track. The mix might improve even with very little of the room.

Whatever, better sonics ... I love it.
These times might be insane and fatal, but what is most wonderful for me is that I am allowed to put my hands on gear that allows sound that I could had only been dreaming of not too long ago.

Have put my bike in the newspaper adds today.

Ruphus
Old 21st May 2003
  #117
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Doug Ring

People do obsess about isolation or seperation, but sometimes it's good to get a feel of the room that was being played in.
Great studio acoustics are all about the character of the leakage and about how well the musicians can hear as they play. You don't need headphones with the right setup in a good room. In fact you don't want them because they screw up the dynamics musicians play and THIS makes it harder to mix. Cal Harris used to tell me that the easiest mixing he ever experienced were the full dates he did at Gold Star in LA. The minute you break the natural glue, something pretty serious gets lost that no gizmo can really replace.
Old 22nd May 2003
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Ted Nightshade's Avatar
 

Ain't it the truth.

I run into the following issue a lot- you can just do your part as writer/performer, or you can give a damn what it sounds like, and then you're in trouble. I see a lot of talent sounding really bad (with the help of the experts! dfegad ), knowing they sound bad, but seeing, quite accurately, that if they start to care what they sound like, and take steps accordingly, there will be no end in sight to those steps- so much cheaper and easier just to do your part and let the people in charge of destroying your sound do their jobs.

I wish 1/10th of the records I hear sounded less than obnoxious, be it obnoxiously squashed, obnoxiously ill-concieved, obnoxiously produced, whatever. I wish 1/10th of the live sound I heard was actually pleasant to endure. Given even that 1/10th, I might have stayed in the performer role and let the folks do their thing...

I went to hear a couple friends of mine play the other night. I sat patiently on my hands for half the set, finally walked up kibitzed a bit, turned some knobs, moved the vocal mic. Sat back down and listened to something fully 100% more musical and enjoyable than it had been- mush and blare turned into space and feeling, all just the result of a little tweak here and there.

It would be easy to conclude that what I can do for another performer to make what they are already up to come across is infinitely more valuable than me going up there and sounding screwed up myself, with whoever is doing sound, doing it to death almost always. This despite the fact that I know what I have to offer as a performer is culturally very valuable, if not always to the taste of the management...

Whenever I go and interfere with the tech end, it sounds so much better, I wish I could ignore that... or go back to not really caring how it sounds. I mean it's music, what's sound got to do with it? For an amazing amount of people, apparently not much.
Old 22nd May 2003
  #119
Lives for gear
 
Ted Nightshade's Avatar
 

Doug Ring sez: "Ted, the old school skills aren't that hard if you've already got some mixing experience. There's not a whole lot of difference between taking something that's already been tracked and bringing it up on a board and getting a quick mix, and taking a dozen live mics, bringing them up on a board and...getting a quick mix. The thing you find with the live that you don't get with the pre-rec is that when you solo an instrument, there's some spill on it....or should we call it organic glue?!"

Don't panic, it's organic!

The skills I covet are the handling of the analog tape machine, which I have become incurably addicted to. Those machines are mostly old now, and keeping the one I've been using running has required the engineer (who has those skills! Too bad he's all tied up and drinks too much) to fiddle around amongst the circuit boards fairly often, aside from the other expected attentions. Doing that on stage is daunting, but that's exactly what my conscience is insisting on. Damned conscience...
Old 22nd May 2003
  #120
Gear Maniac
 

In reference to the picture someone posted earlier of Sinatra singing into a Tele 251, this is the cover art from the album "Sinatra's Swingin' Session".

Once every so often I hit up my local Goodwill thrift markets here in Connecticut, where they have shelves of old vinly for $1 a pop. Needless to say you can find everything from great listening to wacky sampling material. I must admit that I picked up this Sinatra album due to the nice display of microphones on the front cover. (47s, 44s, altec coke bottles, etc)

This is a mono recording, yet the way in which the sounds hug the speakers and project a sense of dimension makes me want to spend less time recording and more time listening. I highly suggest this album for both the great performances and incredible fidelity. If I am ever in my career able to produce something that hugs the speakers the way this recording does, I could actually consider myself something more than a hack.

from the back cover:

"This monophonic recording is playable on monophonic and stereo phonographs. It cannot become obsolete. It will continue to be a source of outstanding sound reproduction, providing the finest monophonic performance from any phonograph."

Find this album and let it show you the way, yet note I am not responsible if you cause any harm to your current recording equipment.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
damien / So much gear, so little time
3
FFTT / So much gear, so little time
7
TapeOp / So much gear, so little time
4

Forum Jump
Forum Jump