Please help me "date" some big moments

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

Hey all,

I'm teaching a History of Music Production class this spring, and would like
any help trying to put these recording innovations on a timeline. Any help
would be appreciated.

1. The approximate date (decade?) that multiple microphones were first used
on a commercial recording. I'm assuming that this would coincide with the
invention (or first use in recording) of the mic mixer, more or less. I'm
also assuming that this would have been a live, mono recording to either
disk or tape, probably disk.

2. The point at which two and three track tape machines were first used as a
means of time displacement, i.e., to allow for overdubbing and subsequent
mixdown. My understanding was that these machines were NOT originally
intended for stereo use and predate stereo, but were used to allow greater
control of individual elements of the recording. I would also assume that
this was the time that the mixdown process was first instituted, but any
clarification of the timeline would be helpful.

And a question:

I'm assuming that the first "console" or mixer was intended to combine
multiple mic signals on their way to a disk cutter, or possibly a tape
recorder. I'm therefore assuming that the input channels were probably not
set up for line level signals and were meant only for microphones.

At what point did someone figure out that you could use a mixer to combine
line level signals (disk or tape playback) along with mic signals to create
a new, sound with sound recording?

At what point did the mixing console really start to be seen in most
commercial studios?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Jim

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

"Jim Klein" <jimklein@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:BE5F4E8D.82AD%jimklein@ptd.net...
> Hey all,
>
> I'm teaching a History of Music Production class this spring, and would
like
> any help trying to put these recording innovations on a timeline. Any help
> would be appreciated.
>
> 1. The approximate date (decade?) that multiple microphones were first
used
> on a commercial recording. I'm assuming that this would coincide with the
> invention (or first use in recording) of the mic mixer, more or less. I'm
> also assuming that this would have been a live, mono recording to either
> disk or tape, probably disk.

Probably the 1930s. But the mixer was already around, for radio production.
Radio broadcasts were using multiple microphones very early.

> 2. The point at which two and three track tape machines were first used as
a
> means of time displacement, i.e., to allow for overdubbing and subsequent
> mixdown. My understanding was that these machines were NOT originally
> intended for stereo use and predate stereo, but were used to allow greater
> control of individual elements of the recording. I would also assume that
> this was the time that the mixdown process was first instituted, but any
> clarification of the timeline would be helpful.

Welll...that's a tough one, because there was Les Paul and there was
everybody else. In the early 50s he built a one-of-a-kind 8-track machine
from Ampex 300 parts, with some custom bits, and he certainly used it for
overdubbing, not stereo. But the earliest *production* multitrack machines
(early-to-mid 1950s) were designed for recording stereo signals. And the
earliest three-track machines were intended for 3-track classical
recordings, a la RCA Living Stereo, and band-plus-vocalist recordings. They
were hard to use for overdubbing because they lacked a "sync" feature,
allowing you to monitor playback audio via the record head. This came along
later on production machines, around the early 1960s, although some
engineers cobbled their own together in the late 50s.

> And a question:
>
> I'm assuming that the first "console" or mixer was intended to combine
> multiple mic signals on their way to a disk cutter, or possibly a tape
> recorder. I'm therefore assuming that the input channels were probably not
> set up for line level signals and were meant only for microphones.

That's hard to say. Early mixers, as I said before, were intended for radio,
and I'd guess that most were designed for microphones, but there were also
mixers for master control, and those would have worked from line-level
signals. Come to think of it, the studio mixers that ran from microphones
basically used mic preamps which fed a line-level signal into some sort of
mix buss, so really they were line-level mixers with external boosters. Or
am I off base on this one?0

> At what point did someone figure out that you could use a mixer to combine
> line level signals (disk or tape playback) along with mic signals to
create
> a new, sound with sound recording?

1920s -- mixing live mic signals and sound effects records.

> At what point did the mixing console really start to be seen in most
> commercial studios?

Probably by 1930. Very crude, but there.

Peace,
Paul

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

Jim Gregory wrote:
> It is said that original acoustic gramophone records made in the early 1900s
> were done using two simultaneous horn sytems onto two disc cutters, making 2
> mono masters out of a "stereo" source.
> The matrices were known as A and B.
> No mics, just astute positioning of instrumentalists around the capture
> diaphragms.
>
> Walt Disney's 1940 Fantasia soundtrack was allegedly recorded on separate
> audio 4-track and 8-track optical burner recorders. Obviously multi-mic and
> then carefully merged onto married prints.
> But other disc studios must have experimentally mixed mics in the late '30s.
> So crude mixing consoles or precursor lash-ups must also date back to mid
> '30s.
>
> In early '50s, Les Paul used to bounce tracks on a half-track tape recorder
> to add another guitar. Each time you bounce you destroy the older mix
> (possibly erasing a better take in the effort), so lots of patience was
> needed. His "echo chamber" and tape-delay "echo" were also inventive and
> crude.
>

Actually, Les used portable cutters to record his tracks. He would then play back the cut disc and
put both that and a "live" signal together and cut that to disc as well.

It is said the finished discs he would send to radio stations were so hot that the needle would jump
out of the tracks.

Les did, of course, "invent" multi track recording, contracting Ampex to build his creation, the
first 8 track machine.

--fletch

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

I think it's interesting how long it took the recording industry to
abandon mechanical recording and switch to the electrical recording
method. Western Electric announced the electrical recording method in
1921, but it was not fully adopted by the industry until 1928 or 1929.

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

"Bill" <bcrowell@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1111119288.714543.118200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I think it's interesting how long it took the recording industry to
> abandon mechanical recording and switch to the electrical recording
> method. Western Electric announced the electrical recording method in
> 1921, but it was not fully adopted by the industry until 1928 or 1929.

I was under the impression that WE announced it in 1924. According to my
source, Stephen Barr's "Almost Complete 78rpm Dating Guide", Autograph put
out the first electric records in late 24, Compo (a Canadian label) in early
25, Victor and Columbia in the spring of 25, OKeh in the summer of 25, and
others thereafter. The two biggies, Victor and Columbia, pushed everyone
else into it; only a few held out until 27 or after (Pathe, Gennett and
Harmony being the most prominent -- the latter, a Columbia subsidiary, made
acoustic recordings as late as 1930 -- which were terrible). Paramount's
blues recordings also remained acoustic for a long time, although they
occasionally said otherwise on the label -- as Barr remarks, "...there was,
after all, an electric light in the studio!" However, the majority of new
recordings were being made electrically by the end of 1925.

Peace,
Paul

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

Joe Sensor <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>
>> I think it's interesting how long it took the recording industry to
>> abandon mechanical recording and switch to the electrical recording
>> method. Western Electric announced the electrical recording method in
>> 1921, but it was not fully adopted by the industry until 1928 or 1929.
>
>Things moved a lot slower back then. Took a while for word to get out.

It wasn't a matter of it taking a while for the word to get out. At the
time the industry was very much smaller (and Victor's patents helped keep
it that way) so there wasn't far for the information to go.

But there was active dislike on the part of the management of the big labels
to go the electrical route, because they felt it would change the sound of
records too much and make them sound like the radio. This was perceived as
a bad thing by a lot of folks in charge.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

In article <0001HW.BE629B07004AB9CDF04075B0@news-server.socal.rr.com> mfw@musictrax.com writes:

> You need to avail yourself of the incredible resources on the web:

How many of them agree on dates and facts?

--
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