Sinatra / Capitol Sound Quality, etc.: "Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely" (1958)

Good points, MMM and apileocole. I'm starting to think this is an old wives tale, maybe. The pieces don't seem to fit.

Matt

 

Some of you oldies who viewed the Sinatra site may recall my "beef" with the CD remixes of "One for my Baby."

Here's the text from that former site:

and

Well, I've always wondered what sort of gear was done to actually accomplish the vocal panning on ONE FOR MY BABY, as many mixers from that time period had SWITCHES to assign mics to channels (not pan pots). Obviously, there had to be a mixer used in post production that had pan pots ("PANoramic POTentiometers," which allow the user to move a sound element anywhere from far left to far right, rather than merely left, center, or right).

My friend Dave recently fully restored (and is using!) a tube-based Pultec mixer that was specifically designed to take an input from a 3 track tape, send the outputs to reverb chambers, then bring the reverb back in to the board to create a stereo output (mix feed) with raw signal and reverb mixed, and everything is fully "pan-able," including the position of the reverb. Specifically, when a signal such as Sinatra's vocal is fed into the board, it goes through a switch along the top. That signal AND its reverb can be moved in one of three ways via a 3-way toggle switch. LEFT means the vocal and its reverb will be sent to the left channel of the stereo mix. RIGHT means the vocal and its reverb will be sent to the right channel of the stereo mix. PAN means the vocal and its reverb will be sent wherever the large PAN knob at the bottom is adjusted. On Sinatra stuff, virtually all the time, the vocal pan knob would have been left in the "center" position, but one could bring about the "walk off" effect at the end of the ONLY THE LONELY album (original mix only) by merely turning the knob to the left. Voila! Frank's vocal and the reverb gradually migrate to the left part of the mix.



(By the way, I have not personally fiddled with this thing, so if anything is inaccurate, forgive me!)

The Pultec SP-3 was available as a tube model originally, but later was issued in a solid state model, with no change in nomenclature. The photo is the original tube model.

Pretty slick!

I've also included a blurb (below) from the original users manual that speaks to the very sort of thing that was done with Sinatra on this album.

Matt

 

Yes, the same thing was done for the SN-series COME DANCE WITH ME. It just used the older SM-series stamper, with the old numbers crossed out.

Matt

 

SH.TV member stevelucille recently snail-mailed (remember actual MAIL?) his 7.5 ips 1/4-track reel of SINGS FOR ONLY THE LONELY so I could copy it to a CD for him, which I was happy to do. The tape was a little mangled in places, but for the tracks that were in good condition, I thought the sound was quite nice. Because IT'S A LONESOME OLD TOWN and SPRING IS HERE were not on the 10-song reel, I went ahead and duped those from the 1983 stereo MFSL LP to create a 12-song CD, and was reminded of something. LONESOME OLD TOWN sounds just fine on the MFSL, but SPRING IS HERE is "drop-out city." It's chock full o'dropouts, start to finish, which got me wondering:

If MFSL was digitally mastering (at least some of) these Sinatra LPs in 1983 (as aural evidence indicates on CLOSE TO YOU), and since MFSL was not in the business of mixing material from the multitracks, what was the source for the stereo mixes of these two tracks that do not exist on the stereo LP master tape, which is presumably a 10-song affair?

Back at post #19, Bob F points out that SPRING IS HERE had been released in stereo in a few compilation albums, but that LONESOME OLD TOWN had no previous stereo compilation release. It had been released in stereo in England in 1976, though, which begs the question:

Were stereo mixes prepared at Capitol in 1958, but just not used? Were new, first-time stereo mixes created in 1963 ("Sings the Select Rodgers and Hart" -- or later if, indeed, that album never appeared in stereo on LP) and 1976 ("One for My Baby," the UK album), and might these stereo mixes have been "lifted" from those albums' assembly masters? (MFSL was doing similar things for the cassette version of MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR in the early '80s.)

I'm just trying to get my mind around the possible provenance of these stereo versions.

Another odd thing: The 1976 UK album has zero dropouts on "Spring Is Here," but the MFSL stereo LP has many.

Weird. Any ideas????

Matt

 

Okay, you Sinatra oldies! I've added brief clips from a reel-to-reel version of this release here and here.

If you were a contributor to our comparison work and can't log in, let me know.

Matt

 

I picked up a sealed (!) copy of the JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS album today. Even the tracks that exist in stereo (such as "Dream" from NICE 'N' EASY) are presented in very pronounced Duophonic. Truly awful. (Based on the label, I would place this release -- or at least this pressing -- at about 1967.)

Matt

(P.S. - If you have any insights regarding the two previous posts, 92 or 93, please chime in!)

(P.P.S.- Mine looks just like the one below, except the logo on the upper left of the cover is the classic Capitol dome logo, not the later "C" logo.

 

Matt, Steve & Arnie Big Thanks for the reel to reel samples, despite the hiss these sound lovely, are these from the same mix or an alternate, whichever it is even with the hiss the quality shines through.

 

The reels use the original stereo mix, and yes, thanks again to Steve and Arne for sharing! (Reel samples can also be heard in the WHERE ARE YOU and COME DANCE WITH ME areas. WHERE ARE YOU uses a unique mix, and is a thing of great beauty, IMO.)

Matt

 

Yes, I did. Some of my comments included:

<<To my ears, the Japanese pressing is thin and harsh sounding, and the UK is just a little on the cardboard-y side, but not bad, per se. Let’s face it: You can’t go wrong with the mono MFSL releases, either on CD or LP. (Surprisingly, the CD seems ever so slightly darker in vocal tone than the corresponding LP release, something I did not expect. Not better or worse, just a hair darker.)

Of course, you’ll likely never find a gray-label as “clean” as that MFSL disc, which is not only on quiet vinyl, but is beautifully mastered as well. It’s a winner. My strong recommendation: If you like the mono mix of this LP -- and it’s a very nice mix -- get the MFSL mono LP or CD and don’t look back. It’s a gasser! Kudos to... the team at MFSL for getting every last bit of warm tone and subtlety out of those mono session tapes. I can’t say enough good things about their accomplishments on this release.

[One very minor technical caveat should be pointed out for the sake of thorough reporting. There is a very slight “glitch” -- and that’s not even really the right word -- on the MFSL CD, something which MFSL is aware of and which they did on purpose, that being: there was a slight tape flaking on the tape for the final song, and it was not evident on the MFSL LP, but on the CD, the problem was audible, so for 2.6 seconds, the MFSL CD contains a splice from a dupe tape. If that’s enough to keep you from purchasing an otherwise astoundingly well-mastered CD (especially when you consider all the pablum that passes for reissues today), that’s okay. Just get the LP instead!]
>>

....and in my closing dissection of the three finalists, from which I chose the 1983 MFSL stereo LP to be the winner, the following appears:

<<1. MFSL Mono reissue, 2009. Whether you go with MFSL’s mono LP or mono gold CD, it’s hard to argue against this being the best of all the mono options out there, and the mono mix is quite nice on its own merits. Pros: Mastered from original session tapes; more instrumental detail is presented (in many instances) due to the increased number of microphones; not affected by the technical problems that beset the stereo recording, as the 1/4-inch tape used for mono was well-matched with the tape machines; rich, full, warm tone throughout; it is easily obtainable. Cons: there is a vastness that lends to the “lonely” effect in stereo that is missing in mono; there is a very minor technical glitch at the tail end of the MFSL CD, but it’s nit-picky; the bass drum effect is not conveyed as well on the mono mix as on the stereo mix; the orchestra is presented quite “dry,” making the reverb applied to Sinatra’s vocal mic a bit more obvious, by contrast.

2. MFSL stereo reissue LP, 1983. Pros: Uses the original 2-track mix, the only mix to feature the custom-created opening piano mix and the “exit stage right” finale, two items that were deliberate artistic choices made when the album was first released, and not found on any of the remixes; this is the only LP release to feature all 12 songs in order in stereo; beautiful vocal tone “couched” within a wet, lush orchestra, all in stereo; unlike the remixed CDs (and maybe even some LPs), no attempt was made to filter out the excess noise apparent on the 3-track tapes. Cons: No attempt was made to filter out the excess noise apparent on the 3-track tapes; hard to acquire in good condition; tape damage apparent on one track, “Spring is Here.”

3. Capitol CD, 1987. Pros: Freshly remixed from the three-track stereo session tapes (no damage to “Spring is Here”); aside from some reverb and noise reduction, processing is kept to a minimum (unlike the 1998 Norberg CD); Similar stereo presentation to MFSL (with caveats below); in print in Europe and relatively easy to come by in North America; Cons: Noise reduction clearly in use here -- but I’ve heard worse, and with the technical problems concerning the 1/2-inch tape stock used, NR is somewhat justified, I suppose; In many spots, the reverb becomes a little “soupy;” the “effects” found in the original stereo mix are missing;

Even though the MFSL stereo won almost by default, it really is an excellent sounding disk on its own merits, and my “winner” overall. If you prefer the mono mix, the MFSL mono reissues are fantastic (just not my personal preference). If you prefer CDs, the Walsh disc (also in the 21-CD British box set) is not bad.>>

Matt