Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Early 70's preamps

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
October 7, 2004 1:25:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What sort of preamps were used on early 70's albums (Paul McCartney,
Elton John, for example)?

It seems the sound in the 70's really changed around 1975 or 1976.

Listening to Paul McCartney's early albums, I notice that albums like
Ram or Band On The Run have a certain sound (don't really know how to
describe it...analogue, organic, warm), but then the album Speed Of
Sound is much different. Cleaner, more modern sounding (not
necessarily better, though).

Thanks for any info.

More about : early preamps

Anonymous
October 7, 2004 3:18:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <spg9m0hnd1q9o1h012fkl8uc3t4m314ev7@4ax.com> none@none.com writes:

> What sort of preamps were used on early 70's albums (Paul McCartney,
> Elton John, for example)?

Whatever happened to be in the console. A better question is "what
console was used . . . ?" And that would usualy be Neve, API, or
something custom built at EMI.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
October 7, 2004 5:28:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Oct 2004 11:18:15 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <spg9m0hnd1q9o1h012fkl8uc3t4m314ev7@4ax.com> none@none.com writes:
>
>> What sort of preamps were used on early 70's albums (Paul McCartney,
>> Elton John, for example)?
>
>Whatever happened to be in the console. A better question is "what
>console was used . . . ?" And that would usualy be Neve, API, or
>something custom built at EMI.

Right, okay.

I'm just trying to get a bead on the connection between the console
(and the preamps in that console) and the sound.

So I know that during the Beatles era, they used tube preamps, I think
by Telefunken (the V72 or V76, etc.), and then on Abbey Road, they
switched to transistor, which is now being emulated by the Chandler
TG-2.

So I was wondering what specifically was used in the early 70's,
trying to associate the famous Neves and APIs with specific famous
albums.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 7, 2004 5:34:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Oct 2004 08:59:57 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>pete <none@none.com> wrote:

>
>>Listening to Paul McCartney's early albums, I notice that albums like
>>Ram or Band On The Run have a certain sound (don't really know how to
>>describe it...analogue, organic, warm), but then the album Speed Of
>>Sound is much different. Cleaner, more modern sounding (not
>>necessarily better, though).
>
>That's a McCartney issue, not a general recording issue, though.
>He was also changing a whole lot in that era, trying to figure out
>who he was in a post-Beatles world.
>--scott

So the gear was the same?

Is the thought then that McCartney could have recorded on a Neve or an
API or whatever, and the console wouldn't have made a difference on
the sound, that it was just McCartney changing his style or approach?

His albums definitely sound different through the years...would the
console (preamps) play into that at all? Or is the idea that the
preamp makes any sort of difference a misnomer?
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 9:17:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

pete <none@none.com> wrote:
>On 7 Oct 2004 08:59:57 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>pete <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>>Listening to Paul McCartney's early albums, I notice that albums like
>>>Ram or Band On The Run have a certain sound (don't really know how to
>>>describe it...analogue, organic, warm), but then the album Speed Of
>>>Sound is much different. Cleaner, more modern sounding (not
>>>necessarily better, though).
>>
>>That's a McCartney issue, not a general recording issue, though.
>>He was also changing a whole lot in that era, trying to figure out
>>who he was in a post-Beatles world.
>
>So the gear was the same?

The gear was a little different. The rooms were a little different.
The philosophy was a lot different. The performer was a whole lot
different.

>Is the thought then that McCartney could have recorded on a Neve or an
>API or whatever, and the console wouldn't have made a difference on
>the sound, that it was just McCartney changing his style or approach?

The console is one of the last things contributing to the overall sound.

Listen to Let it Be. Then listen to the new sparse remixes. They create
a totally different album. And that's with the same performance.

>His albums definitely sound different through the years...would the
>console (preamps) play into that at all? Or is the idea that the
>preamp makes any sort of difference a misnomer?

The preamp makes a little difference, but much less than the microphones,
much much less than the rooms, and much much much less than the instruments
and performers. And much much much much much less than the production
philosophy.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
October 7, 2004 9:17:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Oct 2004 17:17:55 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


>The preamp makes a little difference, but much less than the microphones,
>much much less than the rooms, and much much much less than the instruments
>and performers. And much much much much much less than the production
>philosophy.
>--scott

So why is there the obsession with preamps? I see all the time the
comparisons... this vs. that, the supposed classic Neve 1073 sound,
this one is best on vocals, that one is best on drums, all the
overwhelming preamp choices, the "vintage" sound, the "tube" sound,
preamps better suited to rock, preamps better suited to folk...is it
all just overblown hype?


Thanks for the feedback on this!
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 10:31:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <spg9m0hnd1q9o1h012fkl8uc3t4m314ev7@4ax.com> none@none.com
> writes:
>
>> What sort of preamps were used on early 70's albums (Paul McCartney,
>> Elton John, for example)?
>
> Whatever happened to be in the console. A better question is "what
> console was used . . . ?" And that would usualy be Neve, API, or
> something custom built at EMI.

A Mix magazine article mentions some of the consoles and mics used by A&R
in New York during the making of Ram. You might have to type in an email
address:

PAUL McCARTNEY'S “UNCLE ALBERT/ADMIRAL HALSEY”

http://www.keepmedia.com/Register.do?oliID=225

For backing tracks that were done at CBS studio B:
“We had a 3M MM-1000 16-track recorder and a homemade console at CBS. Studio
B was a big room, about 40 or 50 feet long and 50 feet wide with a
40-foot-high ceiling. We didn't worry about bleeding at all. The setup was
real tight and everyone had headsets.”

Some vocals and orchestral overdubs were done at A&R's A1 studio:

"A&R had four studios in Manhattan; A1 was located in the penthouse at 799
7th Ave. “A1 was one of those magical New York rooms — arguably the best of
them all,” Van Winkle says. “Originally a CBS studio, it was large enough to
handle a full orchestra and it sounded great. We had a warm, fat vacuum tube
Altec console that had been custom-built with handmade sidecars and four
Altec 604E speakers across the front room, each powered by a 75-watt
McIntosh tube amplifier."

"We used a combination of U87s — if we were working on something smooth —
and Shure SM57s for the rockier stuff throughout the album. Paul didn't care
what mic you put on him, although he did like the U87. He's such a great
singer. I know that the vocals they cut over at CBS are Paul singing live
right off the floor with the rhythm section into an Electro-Voice RE20,
which was a relatively new mic at the time."
October 7, 2004 10:32:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks, great article!

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:31:59 -0400, "bluesrock03"
<bluesrock003@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Mike Rivers wrote:
>> In article <spg9m0hnd1q9o1h012fkl8uc3t4m314ev7@4ax.com> none@none.com
>> writes:
>>
>>> What sort of preamps were used on early 70's albums (Paul McCartney,
>>> Elton John, for example)?
>>
>> Whatever happened to be in the console. A better question is "what
>> console was used . . . ?" And that would usualy be Neve, API, or
>> something custom built at EMI.
>
>A Mix magazine article mentions some of the consoles and mics used by A&R
>in New York during the making of Ram. You might have to type in an email
>address:
>
>PAUL McCARTNEY'S “UNCLE ALBERT/ADMIRAL HALSEY”
>
>http://www.keepmedia.com/Register.do?oliID=225
>
>For backing tracks that were done at CBS studio B:
>“We had a 3M MM-1000 16-track recorder and a homemade console at CBS. Studio
>B was a big room, about 40 or 50 feet long and 50 feet wide with a
>40-foot-high ceiling. We didn't worry about bleeding at all. The setup was
>real tight and everyone had headsets.”
>
>Some vocals and orchestral overdubs were done at A&R's A1 studio:
>
>"A&R had four studios in Manhattan; A1 was located in the penthouse at 799
>7th Ave. “A1 was one of those magical New York rooms — arguably the best of
>them all,” Van Winkle says. “Originally a CBS studio, it was large enough to
>handle a full orchestra and it sounded great. We had a warm, fat vacuum tube
>Altec console that had been custom-built with handmade sidecars and four
>Altec 604E speakers across the front room, each powered by a 75-watt
>McIntosh tube amplifier."
>
>"We used a combination of U87s — if we were working on something smooth —
>and Shure SM57s for the rockier stuff throughout the album. Paul didn't care
>what mic you put on him, although he did like the U87. He's such a great
>singer. I know that the vocals they cut over at CBS are Paul singing live
>right off the floor with the rhythm section into an Electro-Voice RE20,
>which was a relatively new mic at the time."
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 10:46:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Wasn't he plugging his instruments straight into the tape machine in the
early 70's???

I could swear I heard him say that in an interview about the early Wings
sessions. He claimed it was "such a pure sound" or something. DI heaven...
those bass lines certainly sound pretty "direct" to me.

JP

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:znr1097146966k@trad...
>
> In article <spg9m0hnd1q9o1h012fkl8uc3t4m314ev7@4ax.com> none@none.com
writes:
>
> > What sort of preamps were used on early 70's albums (Paul McCartney,
> > Elton John, for example)?
>
> Whatever happened to be in the console. A better question is "what
> console was used . . . ?" And that would usualy be Neve, API, or
> something custom built at EMI.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 10:57:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

pete <none@none.com> wrote:
>So why is there the obsession with preamps? I see all the time the
>comparisons... this vs. that, the supposed classic Neve 1073 sound,
>this one is best on vocals, that one is best on drums, all the
>overwhelming preamp choices, the "vintage" sound, the "tube" sound,
>preamps better suited to rock, preamps better suited to folk...is it
>all just overblown hype?

It's not all hype, and it is sort of nice to have a few different colors
to work with. And the truth is that most cheap gear today has really
awful built-in preamp sections, so there is a need for outboard gear.

But most of it is marketing, yes. It's easy to sell someone a preamp
and hard to sell them a new room.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 10:57:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The hype is pretty overblown, that's for sure.

Referring to another post in the thread, 3M didn't do Master Muncher
1000's, that was Ampex, the 3M would've been a 56 series maybe.

Artist, production, room, mic, type of toilet paper, drugs, mic pre,
something like that maybe in order of importance.

But good tools are always handy, and as Scott said, a lot of the low
end stuff really is iffy, and in the '70's no serious studio would've
been caught dead with something like the commonly used low end stuff
of today. The closest stuff to that then would've been a Valley People
TransAmp or an MCI 600 style input, which was even a little later.

Dan Kennedy
Great River Electronics




Scott Dorsey wrote:
> pete <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>So why is there the obsession with preamps? I see all the time the
>>comparisons... this vs. that, the supposed classic Neve 1073 sound,
>>this one is best on vocals, that one is best on drums, all the
>>overwhelming preamp choices, the "vintage" sound, the "tube" sound,
>>preamps better suited to rock, preamps better suited to folk...is it
>>all just overblown hype?
>
>
> It's not all hype, and it is sort of nice to have a few different colors
> to work with. And the truth is that most cheap gear today has really
> awful built-in preamp sections, so there is a need for outboard gear.
>
> But most of it is marketing, yes. It's easy to sell someone a preamp
> and hard to sell them a new room.
> --scott
October 7, 2004 10:57:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Oct 2004 18:57:52 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>pete <none@none.com> wrote:
>>So why is there the obsession with preamps? I see all the time the
>>comparisons... this vs. that, the supposed classic Neve 1073 sound,
>>this one is best on vocals, that one is best on drums, all the
>>overwhelming preamp choices, the "vintage" sound, the "tube" sound,
>>preamps better suited to rock, preamps better suited to folk...is it
>>all just overblown hype?
>
>It's not all hype, and it is sort of nice to have a few different colors
>to work with. And the truth is that most cheap gear today has really
>awful built-in preamp sections, so there is a need for outboard gear.
>
>But most of it is marketing, yes. It's easy to sell someone a preamp
>and hard to sell them a new room.
>--scott

So in other words, if all other things are exactly the same (the mics,
the room, the performance, the stylistic choices, and so on....) it
would really make no difference whether you used vintage API 312s, or
Great River ME-1NVs or A Designs MP-1s, etc. The final product would
sound the same, right?
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 11:59:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

pete <none@none.com> wrote:
>So in other words, if all other things are exactly the same (the mics,
>the room, the performance, the stylistic choices, and so on....) it
>would really make no difference whether you used vintage API 312s, or
>Great River ME-1NVs or A Designs MP-1s, etc. The final product would
>sound the same, right?

Not the same, but not all that different.

Compare Paul McCartney with Frank Sinatra. Sinatra worked for a long
time and lived through at least two total revolutions in audio production
and technique. But listen to his early recordings and the stuff he did
late in life... and in spite of sixty-year difference in technology, they
sound a lot more like one another than McCartney in 1972 did from
McCartney in 1976.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
October 7, 2004 11:59:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Oct 2004 19:59:29 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>pete <none@none.com> wrote:
>>So in other words, if all other things are exactly the same (the mics,
>>the room, the performance, the stylistic choices, and so on....) it
>>would really make no difference whether you used vintage API 312s, or
>>Great River ME-1NVs or A Designs MP-1s, etc. The final product would
>>sound the same, right?
>
>Not the same, but not all that different.
>
>Compare Paul McCartney with Frank Sinatra. Sinatra worked for a long
>time and lived through at least two total revolutions in audio production
>and technique. But listen to his early recordings and the stuff he did
>late in life... and in spite of sixty-year difference in technology, they
>sound a lot more like one another than McCartney in 1972 did from
>McCartney in 1976.
>--scott

Hmmmm, I found this on the Abbey Road Studios website:

"The technical advances were also coming thick and fast and in 1976 a
change occurred in Studio 3 that, while being a definite necessity,
signalled the end of an era. The desk in Studio 3 was replaced by a 36
channel Neve console which meant that for the first time a non-EMI
console was installed in Abbey Road. "

So McCartney recorded Speed Of Sound at Abbey Road in 1976, and I
really think that album *sounds* different than the ones before it,
(not just style-wise to me, but the overall sound) like Ram, which was
recorded at A&R studios in NY, and according to that other article,
they had an Altec console with big fat vacuum tubes...

And so now I'm thinking that I prefer that big fat vacuum tube sound
over what seems to me the much "cleaner" sound of the Neve...

Unless, as you're saying, the preamp is not really the factor that
makes the difference.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 2:35:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JP Gerard wrote:

> Wasn't he plugging his instruments straight into the tape machine in the
> early 70's???
>
> I could swear I heard him say that in an interview about the early Wings
> sessions. He claimed it was "such a pure sound" or something. DI heaven...
> those bass lines certainly sound pretty "direct" to me.

I remember it was a big deal that he bypassed the console when he made
"McCartney II" in 1980. As good as it may have sounded technically, many
(including me) were not that impressed with the songs.

Most of John's material sounded kind of muddy, and sometimes out of
tune, until "Double Fantasy", which was very punchy, and very good, I thought.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 10:17:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

pete <none@none.com> wrote in message news:<spg9m0hnd1q9o1h012fkl8uc3t4m314ev7@4ax.com>...
> What sort of preamps were used on early 70's albums (Paul McCartney,
> Elton John, for example)?
>
> It seems the sound in the 70's really changed around 1975 or 1976.
>
> Listening to Paul McCartney's early albums, I notice that albums like
> Ram or Band On The Run have a certain sound (don't really know how to
> describe it...analogue, organic, warm), but then the album Speed Of
> Sound is much different. Cleaner, more modern sounding (not
> necessarily better, though).
>
> Thanks for any info.

Less is more, and older studios were more hi-fi.
less amps in the signal chain, no automation, no compressors on each
channel, no miniaturization (try making a 24 input tube console with
eq and compression on each channel).
the big changes were the jump from the tube modular mixers that had
not many inputs not too many amp stages and few active components to
transistor desks (more of each), bigger transistor desks with lots of
preamps and gadgets and finally the modern op-amp based mixers with
VCA's etc (SSL and the like) which characterized the sound of the
'80's. The only 'good' thing about modern SSL type consoles from a
producer's standpoint is that the tracks eventually can be made to
sound like most of the other records that were made on that same
console, since it has such an ability to alter sound and make it
aesthetically 'correct' because of the various sonic imprints that it
leaves behind.
Another issue is that of transient reproduction.
I find that the 'feeling' in music comes through in the reproduction
of the transients. modern consoles use op-amps and have thousands of
dB's of negative feedback globally. Negative feedback will distort
transients in 99% of the amps used in consoles. Just think about how
the 80's sound was on the high frequencies.
the older equipment had a higher measurable distortion but less
'musical distortion' -- this coupled with less microphones (therefore
another decrease in transient distortion) created a feeling of being
closer to the artist who was singing or playing.
also multitrack recording did not really exist as it does now.
people used to play mostly live with bleed from one instrument to
another, big ambient microphones etc.
the more tracks, the more inputs needed -- therefore the bigger
miniaturized desks etc.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 12:34:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> On 7 Oct 2004 17:17:55 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>
> >The preamp makes a little difference, but much less than the microphones,
> >much much less than the rooms, and much much much less than the instruments
> >and performers. And much much much much much less than the production
> >philosophy.
> >--scott

In article <8dfbm051khgu9clod8r2a39j47ghfsveft@4ax.com> none@none.com writes:

> So why is there the obsession with preamps?

It's something that today's manufacturers have given us that's easy to
change for a different sound, something that they didn't have in the
'70s. You dind't go to a different studio for the sound of the
preamps in the conosole, you went to a different studio for sound (or
size) of the room, the location, and occasionally what the producer
wanted.

It's just one more thing today that you can buy, so people do. It's
also an excuse for console manufacturers to build mediocre mic preamps
into their consoles because they expect people to substitute something
else.

It's not overblown hype, but it's a choice that we had available 35
years ago. It's like microphones - a well equipped studio in the late
'60s and '70s had some U47s, RCA 44s, and some utility dynamics,
generally Shure or EV in the US, AKG in Europe, plugged into the
console's mic preamps. The only reason why someone would use an AKG
D19 today is because he things it will make his recordings sound like
the Beatles.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 12:34:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <dutbm0hjjgnh66tnmioe4sgrhh5je8ug5i@4ax.com> none@none.com writes:

> "The technical advances were also coming thick and fast and in 1976 a
> change occurred in Studio 3 that, while being a definite necessity,
> signalled the end of an era. The desk in Studio 3 was replaced by a 36
> channel Neve console which meant that for the first time a non-EMI
> console was installed in Abbey Road. "

> And so now I'm thinking that I prefer that big fat vacuum tube sound
> over what seems to me the much "cleaner" sound of the Neve...

Maybe you actually prefer the simpler production that lets you focus
on individual sounds. But you shouldn't be doing that anyway, you
should be enjoying (or not) the music.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 4:44:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Dan Kennedy <dakennedy@minn.net> wrote in news:4165D02F.9020604@minn.net:

> The hype is pretty overblown, that's for sure.
>
> Referring to another post in the thread, 3M didn't do Master Muncher
> 1000's, that was Ampex, the 3M would've been a 56 series maybe.
>
> Artist, production, room, mic, type of toilet paper, drugs, mic pre,
> something like that maybe in order of importance.

And this is from a man who makes his living selling micpres.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 4:44:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Dan Kennedy <dakennedy@minn.net> wrote in news:4165D02F.9020604@minn.net:
>
>> The hype is pretty overblown, that's for sure.
>>
>> Referring to another post in the thread, 3M didn't do Master Muncher
>> 1000's, that was Ampex, the 3M would've been a 56 series maybe.
>>
>> Artist, production, room, mic, type of toilet paper, drugs, mic pre,
>> something like that maybe in order of importance.
>
>And this is from a man who makes his living selling micpres.

Yeah, but he actually makes good ones and doesn't need the hype.
If only the rest of the industry did the same.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 4:44:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957C592A990E1gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191
> Dan Kennedy <dakennedy@minn.net> wrote in
> news:4165D02F.9020604@minn.net:
>
>> The hype is pretty overblown, that's for sure.
>>
>> Referring to another post in the thread, 3M didn't do Master Muncher
>> 1000's, that was Ampex, the 3M would've been a 56 series maybe.
>>
>> Artist, production, room, mic, type of toilet paper, drugs, mic pre,
>> something like that maybe in order of importance.
>
> And this is from a man who makes his living selling micpres.

He's in obvious danger of being considered to be a man with integrity. ;-)
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 4:44:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Everytime I use my GR pres (which is everytime I record anything) I'm
thankful I had enought sense to buy them & grateful to Dan for making
such a fine product.

Al

On 8 Oct 2004 09:10:16 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Dan Kennedy <dakennedy@minn.net> wrote in news:4165D02F.9020604@minn.net:
>>
>>> The hype is pretty overblown, that's for sure.
>>>
>>> Referring to another post in the thread, 3M didn't do Master Muncher
>>> 1000's, that was Ampex, the 3M would've been a 56 series maybe.
>>>
>>> Artist, production, room, mic, type of toilet paper, drugs, mic pre,
>>> something like that maybe in order of importance.
>>
>>And this is from a man who makes his living selling micpres.
>
>Yeah, but he actually makes good ones and doesn't need the hype.
>If only the rest of the industry did the same.
>--scott
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 6:05:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

maxdm wrote:

> created a feeling of being
> closer to the artist who was singing or playing.
> also multitrack recording did not really exist as it does now.

I would argue that the artist were more part and parcel to their writing and songs than now,
albeit more connected to their muse. And I also would substitute *nit picking obsessive pro
tools behavior* for *multitrack*.
--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 6:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

pete wrote:

> And so now I'm thinking that I prefer that big fat vacuum tube sound
> over what seems to me the much "cleaner" sound of the Neve...

> Unless, as you're saying, the preamp is not really the factor that
> makes the difference.

There's a whole console after that preamp thing, and it is subject to
use by humans who can drive it various ways. Gain staging and routing
comes to mind as points of operation where sound can be changed. Maybe
you should just go where there are lots of different preamps and drive
soem of them until you appreciate what they do or do not do for you.

You can put the same rig in different hands and wind up with completely
different sounding records.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 8:18:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Dan Kennedy wrote:

> But good tools are always handy, and as Scott said, a lot of the low
> end stuff really is iffy, and in the '70's no serious studio would've
> been caught dead with something like the commonly used low end stuff
> of today. The closest stuff to that then would've been a Valley People
> TransAmp or an MCI 600 style input, which was even a little later.

I'd have killed for a Great River pre after I sold the board full of
API's, but that was so long ago I didn't know who to aim for.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 12:10:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
news:25150933.0410080517.2575772f@posting.google.com...
> dB's of negative feedback globally. Negative feedback will distort
> transients in 99% of the amps used in consoles. Just think about how
> the 80's sound was on the high frequencies.
> the older equipment had a higher measurable distortion but less
> 'musical distortion'

Makes you realize that the ability to measure things with stuff other than
your ears can sometimes be a bad thing; building for "specs" versus what
sounds "good".
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 5:30:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Oct 2004 19:59:29 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Compare Paul McCartney with Frank Sinatra. Sinatra worked for a long
>time and lived through at least two total revolutions in audio production
>and technique. But listen to his early recordings and the stuff he did
>late in life... and in spite of sixty-year difference in technology, they
>sound a lot more like one another than McCartney in 1972 did from
>McCartney in 1976.

Sinatra perfected performance in an established style. McCartney was
a figurehead for a lot of musical innovations (OK- synthesis of
existing styles if you like, but that's how innovation works:-) by a
lot of people. If he had a personal style I guess it was as a
guitar-strumming crooner - not a particularly ground-breaking concept,
though he did it well.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 5:30:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Laurence Payne wrote:

> If he had a personal style I guess it was as a
> guitar-strumming crooner - not a particularly ground-breaking concept,
> though he did it well.

Except that he wrote some songs that did break some ground. And that he can
actually perform the songs he writes is breaking something...somewhere.
--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 8:01:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ricky W. Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvC9d.212939$D%.127344@attbi_s51...
> Makes you realize that the ability to measure things with stuff other than
> your ears can sometimes be a bad thing; building for "specs" versus what
> sounds "good".

The trouble with "what sounds good", is that everyone has a different
opinion.

TonyP.
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 8:01:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

TonyP wrote:

> The trouble with "what sounds good", is that everyone has a different
> opinion.

Once you know that, you know the secret to great audio.


--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 8:01:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <4167CD3D.69FE693E@nc.rr.com> natewest@nc.rr.com writes:

> > The trouble with "what sounds good", is that everyone has a different
> > opinion.
>
> Once you know that, you know the secret to great audio.

No, but you know the secret to making other people think you know
great audio.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 1:51:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1097330482k@trad>...
> In article <4167CD3D.69FE693E@nc.rr.com> natewest@nc.rr.com writes:
>
> > > The trouble with "what sounds good", is that everyone has a different
> > > opinion.
> >
> > Once you know that, you know the secret to great audio.


There is something to be said for an audio path that makes the
listener feel as if he is in the personal company of the artist/s.
this of course implies that the musicians at hand are artists in the
true sense and can move hearts and illuminate minds. Not many around
today, but..
In this case the best audio path is big ribbon/condenser mikes with
simple low feedback extra-high quality tube based audio with analog
tape recorders (big tape / few tracks)
wasn't it about 1975 that 24 track 2" machines began to outweigh 16
track 2" machines number-wise in studios?
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 8:39:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <25150933.0410100851.43d1bd67@posting.google.com> maxdimario@aliceposta.it writes:

> There is something to be said for an audio path that makes the
> listener feel as if he is in the personal company of the artist/s.
> this of course implies that the musicians at hand are artists in the
> true sense and can move hearts and illuminate minds. Not many around
> today, but..

That sounds like the '70's, where with a little pharmacological help,
it was easy to feel like you were right in there with the artists.
Seriously, I don't think that the equipment contributes so much to
this as the actual playing and arrangement.

> wasn't it about 1975 that 24 track 2" machines began to outweigh 16
> track 2" machines number-wise in studios?

Yes. Even when working with 8 and 16 tracks, a lot of the bands played
live in the studio, and the multitrack just allowed mixing in
post-time without a lot of overdubbing. I don't know if it was a
matter of having more tracks or just that it was time, but when
24-track became the standard, you had more recordings that weren't
played by all the musicians at the same time. It makes recording
accurately easier, but with no surprises, it's not quite like live
music.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 2:22:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> Even when working with 8 and 16 tracks, a lot of the bands played
> live in the studio, and the multitrack just allowed mixing in
> post-time without a lot of overdubbing. I don't know if it was a
> matter of having more tracks or just that it was time, but when
> 24-track became the standard, you had more recordings that weren't
> played by all the musicians at the same time. It makes recording
> accurately easier, but with no surprises, it's not quite like live
> music.

Witness the straight-ahead sound of Los Loney Boys debut CD. They played
the music, and it shows.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 5:03:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1glg4wk.zdr5011mi75fkN%walkinay@thegrid.net...

> Witness the straight-ahead sound of Los Loney Boys debut CD. They played
> the music, and it shows.


That does sounds pretty good.. at least the one cut I heard from it the
other day.

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 1:26:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:41677f78$0$10347$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "Ricky W. Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bvC9d.212939$D%.127344@attbi_s51...
>> Makes you realize that the ability to measure things with stuff
>> other than your ears can sometimes be a bad thing; building for
>> "specs" versus what sounds "good".
>
> The trouble with "what sounds good", is that everyone has a different
> opinion.

Another problem is that a lot of "sounds better" related to electronics
disappears under any kind of serious subjective testing scrutiny.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 4:11:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
news:25150933.0410100851.43d1bd67@posting.google.com...
> mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in message
news:<znr1097330482k@trad>...
> > In article <4167CD3D.69FE693E@nc.rr.com> natewest@nc.rr.com writes:
> >
> > > > The trouble with "what sounds good", is that everyone has a
different
> > > > opinion.
> > >
> > > Once you know that, you know the secret to great audio.
>
>
> There is something to be said for an audio path that makes the
> listener feel as if he is in the personal company of the artist/s.
> this of course implies that the musicians at hand are artists in the
> true sense and can move hearts and illuminate minds. Not many around
> today, but..
> In this case the best audio path is big ribbon/condenser mikes with
> simple low feedback extra-high quality tube based audio with analog
> tape recorders (big tape / few tracks)
> wasn't it about 1975 that 24 track 2" machines began to outweigh 16
> track 2" machines number-wise in studios?

I think your timing is a bit off. 16 track was king in the early-mid-70's.
The 24 trackers came in the late '70's and were King by 1980. But your
perception that some of the best pop and jazz music came out of that era is
correct...engineers still had to know enough to be able to record a group
playing live in the studio, and the group itself had to be acomplished
enough to record together.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 4:24:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

pete <none@none.com> wrote in message news:<spg9m0hnd1q9o1h012fkl8uc3t4m314ev7@4ax.com>...
> What sort of preamps were used on early 70's albums (Paul McCartney,
> Elton John, for example)?
>
> It seems the sound in the 70's really changed around 1975 or 1976.
>
> Listening to Paul McCartney's early albums, I notice that albums like
> Ram or Band On The Run have a certain sound (don't really know how to
> describe it...analogue, organic, warm), but then the album Speed Of
> Sound is much different. Cleaner, more modern sounding (not
> necessarily better, though).
>
> Thanks for any info.

I was working with a band a long time ago and they brought in a bunch
of 70's recordings that they wanted to sound like and I coulnd't do
it. I assumed that it was Neve gear. Then I got my Neve pres and it
was better. but it still wasn't that sound. Then Tony Visconti came by
and we were talking about tape and he made one little comment "15ips
is the sound of the 70's and 30ips is the sound of the 80's." As soon
as he left I realgine my machine for 15ips and there was the sound.

The best pres have stayed in use since they were made. Differneces in
recording eras a probably not going to be in the pres or the mics.
You'll probably find differences in the room design, drum tuning,
effects processors and recording formats are the mechanical things
responsible for sonic trends.

If you want to attribute the change to just on thing, my vote is for
tape speed.
!