SH Spotlight PART DEUX: Recording and mastering questions asked and (hopefully) answered

In this case, Stu remembers incorrectly. BLUE MOON was recorded on 1/2" three-track tape on an Ampex 300-3. The mono version was recorded on an Ampex 351-1. Big studios almost ALWAYS did this after around 1958 no matter what they were recording.

"Early In The Morning" by BUDDY HOLLY was recorded for Decca during a time that they were recording in stereo (1/2") and mono at the same time but the Buddy Holly song was not deemed important enough to "cover" with a binaural version. If it had been about 6 months later they would have done it.

 

VEER THIS OFF TO ANOTHER THREAD, PLEASE.


Thanks.

 

Thank you for your answer, good sirrah!!!

Would they have miked it differently as they did with the Gleason Velvet Brass or was it just a matter of the same mikes but with mono going one way and stereo going another?

 

No, most studios by 1959 had figured out how to do a split feed. Same recording console being fed to two machines, one mono, one three-track. (In some cases two mono machines and one three-track or the other way around). United/Western always had two three-track machines running and one mono machine by 1961.

 

Just to give some variation in the stereo.


Too much hiss in the vocal tracks to just leave it up; very distracting.

 

Thank you again for taking the time. Your answers are much appreciated.

 

Sure, no problem. I love talking about this old stuff.

 

Steve -
Wine tasters have those little crackers that they munch on to neutralize their palate between wines. Do you have to do something similar aurally when you are researching tapes and you can't trust the notes on the tape box to determine which is the master?

 

The MCA was mastered with the EQ'd production LP cutting master and the MFSL was mastered with the actual master tape. That's the difference.

 

Just use my ears, look for splices, etc. that give clues.. Oh, and walk around outside after 1/2 hour of serious listening.

 

Mastering changes the sound from one type to another. I don't know what else to say really. Every mastering engineer hears instruments (and what they feel they should sound like) differently. If the artist agrees, well, there you have it.

 

I've talked about this many, many times in thread like this one:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=56842&highlight=dmm

DMM is too hard to cut, the bass has to be summed extremely high and I don't think it offers much advantage over noise; the compromises are too great.

 

Dislike is too strong a word. I just feel that it's a lot of bother for not much reward. Stan Ricker would of course disagree with me about 1/2 speed mastering. Probably (although we've never really yakked about it) Stan thinks that the more linear cutting potential of (let's say) a trumpet at a slower speed is worth the sacrifice of the lower mids and bass turning to "wonk". On some music maybe it could be.

 

Yes. The neat thing is if you are so inclined and have enough money, you can still build one from Universal Audio:

http://www.uaudio.com/products/analog/index.html