|
Post by iamasound on Apr 22, 2017 13:55:31 GMT -6
I stumbled upon this and thought to share. This is a very cool little documentary about a place which uses all unmodded gear from the 1950's and of the creative choices necessarilly afforded within the context of this period's media. There are lots of muted, hued colored boxes involved, preamps, eq's and compressors, so those in love with these fine early tools will really appreciate this here 37 minutes look at a very cool and interesting place to record music. Sound On Sound... www.soundonsound.com/techniques/recording-50s-style
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 22, 2017 15:14:01 GMT -6
I understand most major label studios used no more than four microphones until three track arrived in the mid '50s when the count went up to twelve. It stayed there until the late 1960s. He has more compressors than anybody had prior to the late '60s!
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Apr 22, 2017 15:47:47 GMT -6
I've always wonder this: Why do people use pegboard acoustic treatment? This studio has it both on the walls and the gobos. Anybody know what the theory is? He says he's randomizing the reflections, but is pegboard a good diffuser? He also says he's minimizing the reflections, but there's a lot hard surface area as well as the holes.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Apr 22, 2017 17:15:20 GMT -6
I've always wonder this: Why do people use pegboard acoustic treatment? This studio has it both on the walls and the gobos. Anybody know what the theory is? He says he's randomizing the reflections, but is pegboard a good diffuser? He also says he's minimizing the reflections, but there's a lot hard surface area as well as the holes. My understanding is that it's used to construct Helmholtz resonator treatment panels, which employ resonance to absorb specific frequencies or ranges. There may or may not be some sort of absorbant material behind the pegboard to alter the resonance of the cavitiy behind. More details, I don't know. The theory is related to slat resonator treatment, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 22, 2017 17:37:37 GMT -6
A pegboard facing over fiberglass or foam reflects high frequencies and midrange more evenly.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 22, 2017 22:03:19 GMT -6
I've always wonder this: Why do people use pegboard acoustic treatment? This studio has it both on the walls and the gobos. Anybody know what the theory is? He says he's randomizing the reflections, but is pegboard a good diffuser? He also says he's minimizing the reflections, but there's a lot hard surface area as well as the holes. Because the gear and recording mediums back then didn't have the fidelity to discern the problems that higher resolution gear unveils. You'll also find if you do the Helmholtz formula, the small holes are much too small (even in great numbers) to do much of any resonation, and thus it's relatively useless.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Apr 22, 2017 22:19:25 GMT -6
Watching that just makes me miss the past generations . Each one brought its own magic and sound . The artwork on the walls , the music..........Then theres today ......2017....makes me feel depressed . From an art standpoint things really , really suck today . What a crappy time to grow up as a kid . Back then you had Elvis and Buddy Holly..today you have justin bieber and kanye west .
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 23, 2017 6:05:05 GMT -6
Past generations didn't have the technological crutches we have today. The talent who got recorded were the best of the best who had been on stage getting paid since they were 16 years old. Today, it's only the best of the hobbyists who can afford to perform, a much smaller talent pool that for the most part is producing mountains of mediocrity nobody considers worth buying.
I remain optimistic that music will turn around but as ever it will not come from the majors or the broadcast industry. My bet is that it'll be on stage. Music is not merely fashion and its magic can't really be recorded.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Apr 23, 2017 6:07:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Apr 23, 2017 7:55:36 GMT -6
A pegboard facing over fiberglass or foam reflects high frequencies and midrange more evenly. Where is this most effectively used in the modern studio?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 23, 2017 12:27:51 GMT -6
Anywhere! What you don't want is muddy reflected sound off the walls. Flat response just sounds like delay.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Apr 24, 2017 6:49:14 GMT -6
Anywhere! What you don't want is muddy reflected sound off the walls. Flat response just sounds like delay. But if pegboard reflect high and midrange frequencies, where's the mud compared to 2x4 panels with 4"-6"" of OC703?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 24, 2017 6:54:59 GMT -6
The idea is to have equal absorption at all frequencies. Fiberglass or foam absorb way more highs than lower mids.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Apr 24, 2017 8:12:27 GMT -6
The idea is to have equal absorption at all frequencies. Fiberglass or foam absorb way more highs than lower mids. Can you help me understand this? For example, in my tracking room- which is also my mixing room in a dual purpose room -I have 6" of OC 703 in 2 x 4 panels on one wall of the live end of my room. According to Bob Gold's chart below, unless I'm reading it wrong, those panels don't absorb more 1-4 Khz than 125Hz-500Hz. However, there is nothing about the high end - 4Khz and up. However, I can't find anything about the absorption at those frequencies. Is there a chart that shows how my panels absorbs those frequencies? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 24, 2017 8:47:28 GMT -6
Absorption increases with frequency. The traditional studio construction was to use 4" of air space behind the fiberglass and face it with pegboard so the room wouldn't sound muffled and performers wouldn't be singing and playing a lot louder than they would be in an ordinary room.
|
|
|
Post by marten on Apr 24, 2017 11:03:26 GMT -6
There's a radio station inside the DeifenBunker museum in Ottawa, Canada. It's a CBC radio station in a bunker with 50's specs. Walls are covered with pegboard and the first thing i noticed in the studio (CR was the same) was the quality of the acoustics in such a small space (10'x 14' maybe).
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Apr 24, 2017 13:40:47 GMT -6
Not that old 37 . But i was lucky to grow up before the internet and computers really took off , I miss that time . I don't own a smart phone and never will . I was fortunate that I was always listening to good music growing up . Grandma was in love with Elvis , frank sinatra , fred astaire and old movies . My mom was in love with the beatles and dad was in a bar cover band playing 50's-60's music . So even though I didn't grow up in those generations they were pretty relevant to my childhood because I have memories of sitting in front of a record player listening to them at home or Grandma's house . I was known as the kid who listened to "His parents music" in school , but I didn't care .....I thought most of the current stuff was crap even back then .
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Apr 24, 2017 16:07:20 GMT -6
Absorption increases with frequency. The traditional studio construction was to use 4" of air space behind the fiberglass and face it with pegboard so the room wouldn't sound muffled and performers wouldn't be singing and playing a lot louder than they would be in an ordinary room. When/why did that stop? There aren't many internet absorption panel builds that include pegboard. Or, is that because the entire wall was a combination of absorption/pegboard back in the day, where now only portions of the walls-at least in most semi pro studios- have panel treatment. I mostly see absorption/pegboard panel builds for gobos.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 24, 2017 16:29:41 GMT -6
It stopped because studios ignorantly wanted more isolation in the late 1960s. RCA had learned that lesson the hard way in the '30s but the wheel has this way of getting reinvented.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Apr 24, 2017 17:22:12 GMT -6
It stopped because studios ignorantly wanted more isolation in the late 1960s. RCA had learned that lesson the hard way in the '30s but the wheel has this way of getting reinvented. For sure. Everyone things they can outsmart the physics of the situation. Lots of rooms in Ireland are rockwool, no panelling, wall to wall. Sounds ghastly. After they realize it sounds pretty bad, they go build some diffusers. Room loses a lot of space they wouldn't have had to if they'd just done the sensible thing in the first place. Would love to do a record like they did with the single mic. Hard to do well, and the group needs to be self-balancing. Not an easy ask even for acoustic acts.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 24, 2017 18:25:20 GMT -6
I'm always trying minimal mic sessions. It's hard to get people to sign off on the results, no matter how good they are. The lack of later options is generally paralyzing to most people. I've gotten a few full band tracks done to live stereo onto records, with some arm-twisting on my part. Several things that morph between live 2 track and multi-track, then back. Just takes practice. What can be really interesting is to track to mono x3-4, with 3-4 mics in an array so you choose 1 only, choice depending on the dynamic outcome of the performance.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Apr 24, 2017 20:33:10 GMT -6
Not that old 37 . But i was lucky to grow up before the internet and computers really took off , I miss that time . I don't own a smart phone and never will . I was fortunate that I was always listening to good music growing up . Grandma was in love with Elvis , frank sinatra , fred astaire and old movies . My mom was in love with the beatles and dad was in a bar cover band playing 50's-60's music . So even though I didn't grow up in those generations they were pretty relevant to my childhood because I have memories of sitting in front of a record player listening to them at home or Grandma's house . I was known as the kid who listened to "His parents music" in school , but I didn't care .....I thought most of the current stuff was crap even back then . I figured we were a similar age. I'm 33. We seem to like a lot of similar 90's stuff. I'm just surprised that you're as old school as you are.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Apr 24, 2017 23:12:28 GMT -6
Not that old 37 . But i was lucky to grow up before the internet and computers really took off , I miss that time . I don't own a smart phone and never will . I was fortunate that I was always listening to good music growing up . Grandma was in love with Elvis , frank sinatra , fred astaire and old movies . My mom was in love with the beatles and dad was in a bar cover band playing 50's-60's music . So even though I didn't grow up in those generations they were pretty relevant to my childhood because I have memories of sitting in front of a record player listening to them at home or Grandma's house . I was known as the kid who listened to "His parents music" in school , but I didn't care .....I thought most of the current stuff was crap even back then . I figured we were a similar age. I'm 33. We seem to like a lot of similar 90's stuff. I'm just surprised that you're as old school as you are. I'm weird . My parents call me kramer from seinfeld . I don't look like him or dress like him , I'm just into all these different random things like Kramer and I kinda act like him . He hangs out with all these random people and has random things he gets into . I'm ashamed to say I shop at Hot Topic . My favorite music is punk . But I listen to everything . I go from Slayer to ABBA , Frank Sinatra , to Pantera in one listening session . I feel like when Korn Follow the Leader came out , is when music started to go down hill and die . So I like everything up to that album . That album was a let down . So 1998 , the death of music for me .
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Apr 25, 2017 2:17:09 GMT -6
I used to think music had good and bad phases, until I got into independent music and realized that it was usually just a coincidence that something became popular that I like/actually thought I was good.
If I'd grown up in the 60's, as a teenager w/ Lee Hazelwood, The Monkees, novelty songs, showbands etc. I'd have thought music was garbage and wanted to go back to the 40's, no doubt about it, when the REAL MUSIC was played. But that's just a narrative, it's not real. You didn't like the music of the era because you had to hear the good and the bad and the bad was offensively and shamelessly targeting you and your peers.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Apr 25, 2017 10:32:26 GMT -6
I used to think music had good and bad phases, until I got into independent music and realized that it was usually just a coincidence that something became popular that I like/actually thought I was good. If I'd grown up in the 60's, as a teenager w/ Lee Hazelwood, The Monkees, novelty songs, showbands etc. I'd have thought music was garbage and wanted to go back to the 40's, no doubt about it, when the REAL MUSIC was played. But that's just a narrative, it's not real. You didn't like the music of the era because you had to hear the good and the bad and the bad was offensively and shamelessly targeting you and your peers. That's one of the great thing about the 60's and 70's before narrowcasting: Unless you never changed the channel on your radio, it was almost impossible to hear only one genre of music. Speaking as a guy who turned 13 in 1970, in the 60's when i turned on the radio I could hear The Who, Aretha Franklin, The Beatles, Glen Campbell, The Monkees, James Brown, Led Zeppelin, Joni Mitchell, Tony Joe White, The Who etc. etc. all in succession. It was a wonderful time for music. BTW: I liked then and still like "I'm A Believer" written by Neil Diamond and recorded using great LA session musicians.
|
|