I've never used a Garrard Type A, but here's a review from vinylengine: Garrard Type A Turntable Reviews - The Vinyl Engine <<The 4 speed Garrard Laboratory A is the stereo successor of the amazing RC88 for the early 1960s. Its glory lies in its changer mechanism which babies 78RPM records. In a standard spindle type changer the center hole in heavy 78rpms are easily gouged out. Since it pushes from the side this damage does not happen. Pulling the center spindle out when the stack is finished makes removing them much easier than other changers. 45s play well on it too with the optional 45 adapter. The big advantage over its ancestors is the new tone arm that Garrard designed for it. It is lighter and better tracking and much more customizable, although anti-skate was a thing of the future when it was designed. It is built like a tank and even though mine is nearly 50 years old runs like new. I would not recommend it for new high quality vinyl records, but if you like to stack vintage 78s or early mono LP and use a triple play GE RPX or VRII cart like I do this TT can not be beat. It will play stereo with a stereo cart and will do a good job if properly adjusted, but bear in mind this is 1962 audiophile and all idler drive turntables have a noticeably higher rumble on high quality records. All in all a great TT.>>
Fair enough! My first stereo combo had a Garrard turntable in it....far from state of the art. BTW, no doubt Mr. S had some say in getting his new Reprise albums into that ad.
The second ad photo (with the "I remember Tommy" cover is a fake. The original photo can be seen on an rare UK EP: Frank Sinatra - .....And Starring Frank Sinatra (Number 1) But I'm sure you know that
That’s actually a Bob Willoughby photo, taken during supper show rehearsals for “The Summit Meeting” at The Sands in Las Vegas in 1960 (coincident with filming for Ocean’s 11). It appears in Willoughby’s book, Sinatra: An Intimate Collection. The four dancers seated in the background are taking a break from “Lady of Spain” (sheet music on piano), while Frank interrupts their rehearsal.
I just found one of these in the wild yesterday, and the front cover (really, the whole gatefold package) is really flimsy. No die-cut thick cardboard as on the US gatefold. Many I've seen in the auctions with the lower right corner ripped off. Luckily this one was intact, probably VG+, holding a NM UK R-1003 LP.
I was inspired by this thread to dig out my UK copy (distributed by Pye Records) last night, it has been a while since I played it. My copy is in exactly the same condition with a flimsy VG+ laminate gatefold cover with NM vinyl. Great listen, I must remember to play it more often.
Was it Thorne Nogar possibly? He sort of had a grumbly voice. Steve, is the fidelity/balance better on the Radio Recorders sessions? I know that during that era, just about everything recorded there sounded quite nice.
No, not him. The fidelity is wonderful but Frank isn't so it doesn't much matter. Lovely four-track recording. I cobbled together a good performance on some of the unreleased songs but I don't know if they ever were issued.
I'm surprised Frank didn't return to Radio Recorders after that session. It was after all one of the very best studios in California. I'm guessing that the four-track was one of the first ones to be used? I know it wasn't commonplace until around 1964 or so, with 3-track being the standard.
Matt, MMM and Steve: just a short note to let you know that sometimes you’ll may have the feeling that you’re out there alone, but be sure that many people like me is reading your posts and learning but don’t contribute because we’re not as knowledgeable as you. it’s marvelous to read all your posts. Thanks!
Well, about the failure of the session at Radio Recorders, I think this: Frank didn't feel as comfortable in the studio as he did at United. At United, he was practically the owner of the space. If it weren't for that, I think Sinatra could have recorded even in the famous RCA studio in Hollywood, which was excellent.
Just because I wanted to hear the album again for the first time in years (since starting this thread eight years ago), I've spent a fair amount of time playing a few different pressings over the last couple of days. In 2012, I wrote: <<There are many decent sounding versions of this album available, but I’m going with the original R9 pressing as my personal favorite, with the later 1-H pressing in second place, and the WW-1 pressing very nice, if a bit dark. >> I still think that's true. I can't quite put my finger on the sonic cause, but there's just some little "secret sauce" on that original (-7) stereo LP pressing. There are other excellent versions, but that original release sounds "right" to me. When the bass is softly playing in the right channel, then the harp plays arpeggios in the left, it's smooth as silk, and Frank's vocal tone is excellent. That's all! See you in eight years!
Still feel the same...the R9 is the best available version of the album. If someone is digital only, the late-90s CD was good...
That's what I like about you, @MLutthans. It may take a few years, but you always get the job done!!!!!
I have started listening to the first Reprise albums this week. I went thru RDD to 1005, haven't played these in a while.
In the last few days, I've listened to "I Remember Tommy" more often. And it's because of him that I correct my opinion of United's recording quality in Reprise's early years: this is a beautifully recorded album. It just needs a "delicate" treatment of volume, mixing and mastering.
Arguably the best recorded of early Reprise albums. My personal favorite version is the Lee Herschberg remastered EOTC CD (9 46969-2). The imaging and soundstage on most of the songs are simply sublime.
Did this album really have ALL of its songs (bar the ending track) released as singles?: Frank Sinatra Singles List : Original Issues, 1960s, 1970s, Reprise, United States, 45-7"
I think Sinatra felt very comfy at United/Western. He never went back to Radio Recorders. The thing about United, there was some "magic" that happened during the reduction mix from 3 to 2. It didn't always happen, but it happened. The I REMEMBER TOMMY stereo mix and the RAY CHARLES MODERN SOUNDS stereo mixes sounded better than the Three's of the same thing. At least that's what I remember from back when I was involved. Probably an extra tube layer and some good rebalancing. Didn't always happen though, that's for sure. Same thing at RCA-Victor with the Living Stereo series. Sometimes the three-tracks just lay there but the reduction mixes in stereo (what the old time engineers call "rerecording") have some magic, I guess caused by the tubes and processing. More holographic sounding, better midband, better focused. Just sometimes though. Other times the remixing for two channel really sucked big time from both companies, double the echo, double the compression/limiting and triple the distortion.
