|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 25, 2014 12:53:27 GMT -6
George Martin told me that they'd still be working on Sgt. Pepper's if they'd had Pro Tools!
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 25, 2014 12:55:09 GMT -6
George Martin told me that they'd still be working on Sgt. Pepper's if they'd had Pro Tools! That's awesome. There is value and creativity in limitation. |
|
arny
Full Member
Posts: 39 
|
Post by arny on Jan 25, 2014 13:21:39 GMT -6
Does anybody really believe Les Paul's records sounded that great? Dear Bob, I'm 78 years, my family purchased a wire recorder for me while I was still at school. I was known by onlookers and my school teachers as the Strange Liitle Boy who sells newspapers on a busy street corner in order to buy records, the likes of Eddie Lang, Django etc etc. At 15 I heard Les Paul and Mary Ford, for the first time, I could not believe my ears, I assumed it was a new 78 process, but no, every thing else on Capitol did not sound as good, we put it on the family Radiogram, and it was just amazing the Radiogram had never sounded so good, every visitor to the house was asked inside with the words from one of my Family. "Come and hear this it'll blow your mind" Sure Les's records sounded that good, he was a pioneer with sound and guitar design. I still have the used 1947 Recording magazine I purchased when I was 14, and then had it put through the Family Door on a yearly subscription until it ceased production around 1954. Kind Regards Tony, & i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh241/Nipper99/image_zpsdce41524.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 25, 2014 13:30:35 GMT -6
Speaking of LP and MF
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 25, 2014 13:46:54 GMT -6
if only they had a "click" they could have really nailed that eh !  wow ! I was watching a beatle documentary recently and in basically an hour you heard almost their entire recorded repitoire but the funny thing was ; the best sound was the very first mono vocal of all three singing together ! I could just visualize then standing around a classic mike in abbey road; nailing it ! |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 25, 2014 19:09:45 GMT -6
Honestly, a lot of classic recordings lack full bandwidth and to my 40 year old ears - don't sounds "great"...BUT it's funny, - what is "Great"? They have a character and personality (and they certainly are softer and more pleasing to the ear on tape)...It's like hearing Willie Nelson or Neil Young sing - not "great"...but just kind've incredible. Sometimes I wonder if we mix up the greatness of the performance with the greatness of the sound. What would Marvin Gaye, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, etc. sounded like recording 24/96? Even better? You are so right, this thread is humbling. You are so right about that artistic "thing" too. The "it" factor. I've met some people that just ooze this. I think engineers and producers can get to that "it" level in a different way. And when you combine both of them--look out. Those are the best recordings, to me. |
|
arny
Full Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by arny on Jan 25, 2014 23:11:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 26, 2014 2:27:00 GMT -6
I always avoided Ampex tape like the plague after bad experiences with 406 and 456. The only 3M tape I ever had a problem with was 226 which developed a bad case of sticky-shed just like the 456 it emulated. Ampex tape was popular because tape was a profit center for most studios and the minimum order for a really good price on Ampex left it costing half as much in many cases even though the list prices were the same as 3M. I'll have to try the 911. I would have thought you would get better results with ATR (although it is high output tape) as the current production of RMGI seems to be having problems at the Pyral factory. Two distributors here in Europe report that, as of today, they cannot even tell me when they will have RMGI in stock because of the trickling supply from the factory. The Spanish distributor has actually stopped distribution of RMGI products because of this. Maybe you can get a hold of Dutch made RMGI 911. Obviously, I'm assuming you are not referring to BASF/Emtec 911. As always, I learn something from your posts. Very interesting to know why Ampex tape was so "popular". |
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 26, 2014 2:47:44 GMT -6
Simply recording live ensembles is even faster and more decisive than using tape! It forces you to get the arrangement and performance right so there is no need to use technology crutches to make it work at all. Does anybody really believe Les Paul's records sounded that great? At our studio we record bands live 99% of the time. Although most bands leave vocals and a couple of overdubs for later, some bands record with no intention of overdubbing anything. When this happens, I mix to two track at the same time as I record the multitrack (while the band is playing). When I nail the mix (to the band's aesthetic preference) working this way, the sound quality is the highest I can offer as we have "skipped" the multitrack. If not, then we can mix from the multitrack. Working this way, it is possible to do a record in a day. You have to pay attention though. To be honest, as much as I prefer tape over PCM digital, all else being equal, I would rather record any band live to hard disk than one instrument at a time to tape. I always thought that Les Paul's records were the first to rely massively on technology. He had a very distinctive sound that must have been fascinating at the time but that must have aged quickly and badly (something that happens often to "sonic trends"). I do love those records, even if (to me) they are not the best sounding from that era. EDIT: I posted this before reading Mr Arnold's post about the Les Paul 78's. I'm only forty and have not had he luck to listen to those records when hey came out. I hope no one takes my opinions the wrong way : ) |
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 26, 2014 3:32:14 GMT -6
Honestly, a lot of classic recordings lack full bandwidth and to my 40 year old ears - don't sounds "great"...BUT it's funny, - what is "Great"? They have a character and personality (and they certainly are softer and more pleasing to the ear on tape)...It's like hearing Willie Nelson or Neil Young sing - not "great"...but just kind've incredible. Sometimes I wonder if we mix up the greatness of the performance with the greatness of the sound. What would Marvin Gaye, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, etc. sounded like recording 24/96? Even better? Establishing what is "good" or "great" is one of the first things I realized I do when a band walks into the studio: What do they mean when they say "that sounds good". Curiously, and making wide generalizations, newer records sound worse to me than most "old" records. To my ears, those late fifties records from Columbia (for example) are much higher sound quality than the records coming out today. Kind of blue would be an example of what I'm thinking of, but most records of that era sound spectacular to me. I'm guessing that what you hear as "full bandwdith" I'm hearing as "overbearing sub bass" : ) I don't know what Marvin Gaye, Pink Floyd and The Beatles would have sounded on PCM digital (worse in my opinion, for sure). I do know we wouldn't have their multitracks available today as archiving digital is next to impossible. The only objective criteria I have found for sound quality is comparing the recording to the source. If it is closer to the source, it is of higher quality (obviously, many musicians, engineers and producers are not interested in instruments sounding during playback like they did in the room). A problem with this concept is that you need the instrument/band to be playing in the live room to evaluate the quality of the recording. Objective quality in music recording is a complex concept we could be discussing for years. To me both Neil Young and Willie Nelson (singing) are Great. I just had to say that. Not Tony the tiger "great!". Giant marble letters of greatness spelling GREAT. Also, kinda surprised you can say Willie is "kinda incredible" in Nashville and not be burned at the stake within the hour  |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 26, 2014 8:25:19 GMT -6
Man this is a great thread fellas!!! Thanks for all the insight!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 26, 2014 9:18:16 GMT -6
I know the Marvin Gaye records played with a top of the line Shure or Stanton cartridge in the cutting room sounded remarkably like the master tape source played on our Studer C-37s. I also know that a CD-R made from those records sounds very much like the record. Unfortunately the CD reissues fall short.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 26, 2014 9:23:30 GMT -6
I'll answer that...It's humbling for me because it shows me just how much I don't know... |
|
arny
Full Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by arny on Jan 26, 2014 11:17:32 GMT -6
Johnkenn, I'll answer that...It's humbling for me because it shows me just how much I don't know... Dear John, Quite the Contrary my friend, to set up a great forum like this you should not feel humbling So all together ♬ For ♩ he's a ♫ Jolly Good♭ Fella ♬ Kind Regards Tony, Helios Electronics Ltd & |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 26, 2014 13:41:28 GMT -6
Just what John Kenn said, how much more some people seem to know about engineering than I do. Especially regarding classic analog technique. It's such a huge field to learn, I know I've still got plenty more to go. I just love it when the discussion gets super technical, that's when I really feel like I can learn more. |
|
wow ! 
