Armin Steiner in outtake from the film The Wrecking Crew talks about "Vegetables

[Andrew G. Doe]

So... the first hand evidence of the company newsletter and someone who actually worked in the studio at the time is to be disregarded for what someone sees in a few seconds of film footage some 20 years later and deduces ?

Jesus, I'm sometimes arrogant, but this is arrogance elevated to a whole new cosmic level. There's no point in researching any more, is there, because all that really matters is what people with no connection to the industry think.

Know something ? I think "Good Vibrations" wasn't ever released as a single at all, so don't try to persuade me otherwise with such pointless 'evidence' as an actual copy of the 45, OK ?

AGD, I just read the old thread and by the end of it you seemed to be as unsure as any of us what the make and model of that machine was, and our best evidence was only that the machine in the BB footage did not look like other identified Dynatrack machines, and the fact that it was running 1" tape.

I know how much you enjoy being angry, but I think it's recurring problems like these that actually make it more worth researching, and not giving up--building on what we slowly uncover and not reverting to the old-standbys.

If the thing is a Dynatrack 4-track, why is it running 1" tape?

Two channels per track. Like I said, in strict technical terms, it IS an 8-track, as there are 8 tracks used during recording... but there's no Sel-Sync and the discrete tracks number only four (doubled), ergo it's not an 8-track as we understand it.

[Andrew G. Doe]

So, there were two different brands, a Scully brand and a 3M Dynatrack brand, and it's possible that the studio already had an 8 track Scully before taking delivery later for an 8 track 3M Dynatrack?  I'm just trying to make sure I understand this correctly.  

The newsletter makes it clear that the 3M machines were not the latest 8-tracks, but the first 8-tracks that United & Western had. Surely in such an item there would be reference to a pre-existing 8-track capability - custom built or commercial - but there isn't. It's superficially confusing, true, but apparently clear-cut enough.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

So... the first hand evidence of the company newsletter and someone who actually worked in the studio at the time is to be disregarded for what someone sees in a few seconds of film footage some 20 years later and deduces ?

Jesus, I'm sometimes arrogant, but this is arrogance elevated to a whole new cosmic level. There's no point in researching any more, is there, because all that really matters is what people with no connection to the industry think.

Know something ? I think "Good Vibrations" wasn't ever released as a single at all, so don't try to persuade me otherwise with such pointless 'evidence' as an actual copy of the 45, OK ?

AGD, I just read the old thread and by the end of it you seemed to be as unsure as any of us what the make and model of that machine was, and our best evidence was only that the machine in the BB footage did not look like other identified Dynatrack machines, and the fact that it was running 1" tape.

I know how much you enjoy being angry, but I think it's recurring problems like these that actually make it more worth researching, and not giving up--building on what we slowly uncover and not reverting to the old-standbys.

If the thing is a Dynatrack 4-track, why is it running 1" tape?

Two channels per track. Like I said, in strict technical terms, it IS an 8-track, as there are 8 tracks used during recording... but there's no Sel-Sync and the discrete tracks number only four (doubled), ergo it's not an 8-track as we understand it.

So your position is that the machine we see is, essentially, Scully's answer to the 3M product?

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Another point, not meant to prove anything, but something to consider:

Has anybody heard of any tape in the vault that was recorded to "4-track" 8-track?

When I worked for Alan, I did a pretty comprehensive review of the catalog, and I don't recall any of the early 1" tape being classified this way.

[Andrew G. Doe]

So... the first hand evidence of the company newsletter and someone who actually worked in the studio at the time is to be disregarded for what someone sees in a few seconds of film footage some 20 years later and deduces ?

Jesus, I'm sometimes arrogant, but this is arrogance elevated to a whole new cosmic level. There's no point in researching any more, is there, because all that really matters is what people with no connection to the industry think.

Know something ? I think "Good Vibrations" wasn't ever released as a single at all, so don't try to persuade me otherwise with such pointless 'evidence' as an actual copy of the 45, OK ?

AGD, I just read the old thread and by the end of it you seemed to be as unsure as any of us what the make and model of that machine was, and our best evidence was only that the machine in the BB footage did not look like other identified Dynatrack machines, and the fact that it was running 1" tape.

I know how much you enjoy being angry, but I think it's recurring problems like these that actually make it more worth researching, and not giving up--building on what we slowly uncover and not reverting to the old-standbys.

If the thing is a Dynatrack 4-track, why is it running 1" tape?

Two channels per track. Like I said, in strict technical terms, it IS an 8-track, as there are 8 tracks used during recording... but there's no Sel-Sync and the discrete tracks number only four (doubled), ergo it's not an 8-track as we understand it.

So your position is that the machine we see is, essentially, Scully's answer to the 3M product?

If we knew exactly when the footage was filmed - as opposed to merely 1/5/67 or later but before May-ish - that would help a lot.  My two sticking points are...

1 - if Western had a functioning 8-track, why use Columbia for vocals where Brian wasn't even allowed to touch the board ?

2 - the company newsletter making no reference whatsoever to any 8-track capability before the 4/67 edition.

As for all the needles moving in unison in the footage, this is the best I can offer: in the "GV" sessions Brian mentioned recording a segment on two 4-tracks, thus eliminating the need to play it twice or copy for later editing purposes. Bit of a stretch, granted, but could that be what he's doing here as well ?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Another point, not meant to prove anything, but something to consider:

Has anybody heard of any tape in the vault that was recorded to "4-track" 8-track?

When I worked for Alan, I did a pretty comprehensive review of the catalog, and I don't recall any of the early 1" tape being classified this way.

Extremely pertinent point from someone with something of an in on the topic... and FWIW my answer has to be, no, I never have heard that. Damn, I wish Chuck was still around.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Damn, I wish Chuck was still around.

Yeah.   

[guitarfool2002]

I think the points trying to be determined are being missed and the evidence of what is actually shown in the film and on a photo of a similar session from a different day is being dismissed too easily. Two main questions were what are they doing in that film and when was it shot? The other question is since that is a 1" 8-track, what was it doing at Western if it was not a Dynatrack?

The fact is, and this other film angle proves it, the machine in that film and the photo on page one is made by Scully. It is not a Dynatrack, for the simple reason that the Dynatrack was manufactured by 3M and would have 3M components. It would not look like that which is shown in the film with a bank of eight Scully components above a 1" Scully reel machine.

The Dynatrack was a specific mechanical process, specific to 3M. The mechanics which made it work were part of 3M's designs, and the earlier examples shown in the photos of an actual 3M Dynatrack all show the same components from 3M. If you wanted Dynatrack, I believe you had to buy the full setup in 1967, which included the components as shown in the other photos.

Unless Scully made a system compatible with the Dynatrack, as patented and designed by 3M, that machine shown in the film is not a 3M Dynatrack, rather it appears to be a 1" 8-track machine from Scully.

It would be appreciated if some of our members who own and/or operate this kind of tape machine could chime in with their take.

[guitarfool2002]

My apologies, I f***ed up the name and have corrected it to "Scully". I got lost in the discussion and said Studer instead of Scully, which is what that machine is and was.

Now I ask, especially Andrew and Josh, *please* refer back to the original thread we had on this, through the links posted on the previous page. Many more folks chimed in there, including one member who I know owns and actually uses machines similar to these in the photos. Andrew - you yourself in the older thread discussion agreed with some of the same points you're arguing against me in this one. Please review that discussion, I don't want to get into a pissing match about being "in the industry" or whatever, and a lot more facts came out in that thread about what we're actually viewing. So if you don't accept my knowledge or credibility in the matter, look to what others have said and consider the points being made.

I was more than a little stunned when someone who inspires folks to look beyond the accepted wisdom of a particular topic and dig deeper to bust existing myths would play that card as played on page one. Again, if my input doesn't add up to much in your book, consider that this very piece of film and that still photo from Jan. 1967 *may* have busted a myth about exactly what Brian had available at Western and when he had it available. What we see here may be that one part of the equation which doesn't fit, and that one part which leads to some "new" information about how these guys worked in 66-67.

Suppose that machine shown in the film was Brian's own machine at that time in history? Suppose Brian rented that machine in order to allow for mixing his 8-track tapes from places like Columbia at Western, where he was more comfortable? Suppose Western had nothing to do with owning or renting that exact machine, and they hooked it up for Brian when he showed up to work? Or to mix? Just supposing opens up possibilities.

Because as it stands now, we have a piece that doesn't fit and it's important to figure out why. I'd take it to the bank and say, as was indicated in that first thread, that this is *not* a Dynatrack machine, which was a very specific piece of gear especially in 1967. Poster DonnyL I believe said only 20-30 were ever made, indicating it was not an initial success and wasn't widely used.

Please consider it. And if I took it to the bank and ended up not being correct, it would not be the first time I have invested and lost sums of money with the music recording and production business, after having a small studio partnership running for a few years. 

Let's solve this f*cker, shall we?

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

My apologies, I f***ed up the name and have corrected it to "Scully". I got lost in the discussion and said Studer instead of Scully, which is what that machine is and was.

Now I ask, especially Andrew and Josh, *please* refer back to the original thread we had on this, through the links posted on the previous page. Many more folks chimed in there, including one member who I know owns and actually uses machines similar to these in the photos. Andrew - you yourself in the older thread discussion agreed with some of the same points you're arguing against me in this one. Please review that discussion, I don't want to get into a pissing match about being "in the industry" or whatever, and a lot more facts came out in that thread about what we're actually viewing. So if you don't accept my knowledge or credibility in the matter, look to what others have said and consider the points being made.

I was more than a little stunned when someone who inspires folks to look beyond the accepted wisdom of a particular topic and dig deeper to bust existing myths would play that card as played on page one. Again, if my input doesn't add up to much in your book, consider that this very piece of film and that still photo from Jan. 1967 *may* have busted a myth about exactly what Brian had available at Western and when he had it available. What we see here may be that one part of the equation which doesn't fit, and that one part which leads to some "new" information about how these guys worked in 66-67.

Suppose that machine shown in the film was Brian's own machine at that time in history? Suppose Brian rented that machine in order to allow for mixing his 8-track tapes from places like Columbia at Western, where he was more comfortable? Suppose Western had nothing to do with owning or renting that exact machine, and they hooked it up for Brian when he showed up to work? Or to mix? Just supposing opens up possibilities.

Because as it stands now, we have a piece that doesn't fit and it's important to figure out why. I'd take it to the bank and say, as was indicated in that first thread, that this is *not* a Dynatrack machine, which was a very specific piece of gear especially in 1967. Poster DonnyL I believe said only 20-30 were ever made, indicating it was not an initial success and wasn't widely used.

Please consider it. And if I took it to the bank and ended up not being correct, it would not be the first time I have invested and lost sums of money with the music recording and production business, after having a small studio partnership running for a few years. 

Let's solve this f***er, shall we?

Believe me, I'm totally on board with you--this is an open case, and that's an 8-track, for sure, in my book.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Suppose that machine shown in the film was Brian's own machine at that time in history? Suppose Brian rented that machine in order to allow for mixing his 8-track tapes from places like Columbia at Western, where he was more comfortable? Suppose Western had nothing to do with owning or renting that exact machine, and they hooked it up for Brian when he showed up to work? Or to mix? Just supposing opens up possibilities.

Interestingly, a Smile-era article refers to Brian bringing his own personal 8-track into Western, but as said article is not exactly 100% accurate, that aspect has been discarded. Maybe they were right. We know Brian rented a Scully 4-track so use at Laurel Way during Pet Sounds, so maybe they knocked up an ad-hoc 8-track for him a little while later. If only we knew. If only...

BTW, I'm pretty sure that once someone looked at a Dynatrack, realised that it was 98% of the way to a pukka 8-track and picked up their soldering iron and screwdriver, that was when its fate was sealed.

[DonnyL]

The machine is that footage is a Scully 280/284 1" 8-track. This is absolutely indisputable.

I've been on the Scully list for many years and have owned a couple Scully machines and done lots of research. I've corresponded with Remy David (who worked for Scully later on in the '70s) and Steve Puntolillo (Scully group list owner) on many occasions, and they will back up what I'm about to say:

The machine itself is a standard Scully 280 1" 8-track. This is technically called a Scully 284 (the larger transport), but the individual channel modules still say '280' (the 16-track transport was called '288'). You have a 1" transport with an 8-track head, along with 8 standard 280 channels. The cabinets don't really matter. You could purchase these decks without any furniture and rack-mount the transport (sideways) and individual channels (standard 19") if you want to. The 'standard' consoles you are used to seeing are called Russ Lang rollaround cabinets, which were the most common way these kinds of decks were ordered (Ampex used 'em too). This is just an instance of a different setup being used. Most studios customized things to suit their needs.

All of this can be verified by looking at the original Manuals and sales sheets, many of which are available on the Scully Yahoo group's archives.

For the record, the 1" 12-track machines commonly used this type of cabinet as well.

and yeh, no one else used 'Dynatrak' -- this was a failed 3M system. Another thing to point out: There was no 3M model called 'Dynatrak'. It was just a failed noise reduction system. The tape machine was called an M23. The newletter which mentiond model C401 is incorrect -- there was no such model.

Most likely scenario is that BW rented the Scully from Heider and brouhht it in. Not really that weird.

[DonnyL]

I'm really interested in knowing about the 8-tracks at Atlantic NY in the late '50s and Motown in '64...any specifics, Guitarfool?

I think Motown's first 8-track was an Ampex 350. The 8-track at Atlantic was probably constructed from an Ampex 351 or similar. [edit: Scroll down to the bottom of page 3, I posted a link that has a picture of this type of deck ... not sure the history but it's probably one of these originals we're talking about; there were really only a few in existence, and they were all custom made (either by Ampex or the studio techs)].

[DonnyL]

Here is a Mix Magazine interview with Armin Steiner, it fills in a lot of the details for anyone interested in the history or who he was:

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_armin_steiner/

Steiner says his 8-track at Sound Recorders was "one of the first commercial studios" to have 8-track capability, I guess he means in Hollywood because Atlantic in New York was doing sessions on 8 track in the late 50's and Motown in Detroit had an 8-track back in '64. But the important thing he said was how he built his own from parts taken from other machines, and apparently that's what the others were doing as well. Columbia, he said, did a primitive version of joining two 4-track machines together without syncing them, and I had never heard that before in all the history.

Look at the list of credits Armin Steiner has...it's quite the resume. I'd say that easily puts him high on the list of those legendary studio figures from the 60's who everyone has heard but few know their names.

Really ? I mean, REALLY ?  That's been common knowledge in the BB world for decades: the liners of Sundazed's excellent Bruce & Terry compilation give some detail. Columbia engineers knocked up two custom 8-tracks from spare Ampex parts. Wasn't exactly high spec, but it wasn't two 4-tracks and Brian was using it from 1965, at Bruce's recommendation.

This is from the Steiner interview: Eight-track. Sound Recorders was one of the first commercial studios to have an 8-track. Columbia had done it, as I recall, by running two 4-track machines together, not even with a synchronizer — it was kind of all makeshift. But we actually built one. We took an Ampex 200 deck, that huge thing with big motors, built as a monaural machine, and, as I recall, we used Ampex PR10 electronics. The PR10 was two channels in one box, so we didn't have to have so many amplifiers hanging around. So, we added together four packages of Ampex 2-track electronics.

  Yes, really! Here's the issue: Steiner's exact quote said Columbia was running two four-track machines together without sync, so if your quote from Sundazed says specifically it wasn't two four-tracks, that contradicts directly what Steiner said, and Steiner's version of what Columbia did was the part that I hadn't heard before. So there is the story coming from the Bruce and Terry liners saying one thing, and Armin Steiner saying another. It actually sounds like Steiner described what Columbia did - according to the Bruce and Terry version - when he described how he Frankenstein-ed Ampex parts to make his own 8-track at Sound.

Adding it all up, it's hard to doubt either side, especially when Steiner remembers the exact part numbers after 40 years. Or maybe he just made a mistake in remembering ('as I recall', he says...) how Columbia got to 8 tracks.

And ultimately, combining this with the film footage of Brian and Chuck circa Fall '66 mixing to 8-track at Western, I think it kind of shatters the myth that Columbia was the only go-to studio for 8-track recording in L.A. at a certain time in history. Or maybe they were...

[edit: I originally read this wrong] I think Steiner is mistaken in saying Columbia was running two 4-tracks; they had an actual 8-track. Steiner talks about building an 8-track ... this is exactly what Columbia did as well. The electronics were either Ampex 354 or PR10 (essentially the same thing), with  a 1" Ampex 351 (I think) transport. They were able to get something with a much smaller footprint by using the electronics from 4 stereo decks (8-tracks) instead of 8 individual modules.

Everything I'm posting here is verifiable. The photos are more reliable than quotes or industry newsletter propoganda. You've got to put the whole picture together considering everything.

[guitarfool2002]

Awesome information! The terminology sometimes tends to cloud the issues and the facts, yet it is great to have people connected to other sources who can clear things up when necessary. Many thanks!

[DonnyL]

Suppose that machine shown in the film was Brian's own machine at that time in history? Suppose Brian rented that machine in order to allow for mixing his 8-track tapes from places like Columbia at Western, where he was more comfortable? Suppose Western had nothing to do with owning or renting that exact machine, and they hooked it up for Brian when he showed up to work? Or to mix? Just supposing opens up possibilities.

Interestingly, a Smile-era article refers to Brian bringing his own personal 8-track into Western, but as said article is not exactly 100% accurate, that aspect has been discarded. Maybe they were right. We know Brian rented a Scully 4-track so use at Laurel Way during Pet Sounds, so maybe they knocked up an ad-hoc 8-track for him a little while later. If only we knew. If only...

BTW, I'm pretty sure that once someone looked at a Dynatrack, realised that it was 98% of the way to a pukka 8-track and picked up their soldering iron and screwdriver, that was when its fate was sealed.

'Dynatrak' is just a noise reduction system that turns an 8-track into a lower-noise 4-track. It was an option on a 3M M23. This was during the era of low-output tape. It became totally obsolete by 1969 when high-output tape came out. Most M23s with Dynatrak were converted to standard 8-track after that.

[guitarfool2002]

The issue of Brian perhaps having an 8 track was mentioned, and I also recall seeing a quote from Van Dyke Parks where he mentioned being impressed that Brian had an 8 track...or something along those lines.

We know he had a 4-track machine to work on his own, again Scully based, because of these photos with Tony Asher. It looks like a classic "demo studio" setup, where there doesn't seem to be a board, and is actually looking like not much more than a basic 4-channel line/mic mixer perched on top:




I can't really pick it out...does that look like a 1/2" tape on the reel? I'd love to have anything close to that McIntosh...

So the evidence is there that Brian had a 4-track of his own at home in '66, but it isn't as likely he'd have an 8-track only months later, after these photos. It's still a possibility that the machine in the film was either a rental, or available at that time at United/Western some other way.

[DonnyL]

The issue of Brian perhaps having an 8 track was mentioned, and I also recall seeing a quote from Van Dyke Parks where he mentioned being impressed that Brian had an 8 track...or something along those lines.

We know he had a 4-track machine to work on his own, again Scully based, because of these photos with Tony Asher. It looks like a classic "demo studio" setup, where there doesn't seem to be a board, and is actually looking like not much more than a basic 4-channel line/mic mixer perched on top:




I can't really pick it out...does that look like a 1/2" tape on the reel? I'd love to have anything close to that McIntosh...

So the evidence is there that Brian had a 4-track of his own at home in '66, but it isn't as likely he'd have an 8-track only months later, after these photos. It's still a possibility that the machine in the film was either a rental, or available at that time at United/Western some other way.

Yeh, that's a 4-track 1/2" Scully 280. I think this was a playback only setup though, but not 100% sure. There's a quote from Carl about Brian converting his maid's quarters to a 'playback room' and playing 'Sloop John B'. There's Mcintosh amp (probably connected to an Altec speaker), and a small, basic 4-channel mixer on top.

This was possibly set up so that BW could bring home session tapes in-progress to develop new ideas for overdubs. The Scully does have Mic-preamps built in but it's highly doubtful that any recording was done in BW's home at this time.

Also note, it's highly doubtful Brian actually OWNED these decks ... they were mostly likely rented from Heider.

[DonnyL]

Another point, not meant to prove anything, but something to consider:

Has anybody heard of any tape in the vault that was recorded to "4-track" 8-track?

When I worked for Alan, I did a pretty comprehensive review of the catalog, and I don't recall any of the early 1" tape being classified this way.

Almost no one used the Dynatrak system. I would bet lots of $$$ that no Beach Boys tape is on Dynatrack. There would also be no way to play it back properly.

[DonnyL]

Steiner states "if, as I recall". He doesn't. Bruce was a staff producer at Columbia, and he set me straight on the matter several years ago. Terry was also a producer at Columbia (hardly surprising as his mother all but owned the company) and his recollections also contradict Steiner, who admits he didn't know for sure. As for his recalling the exact parts of his own machine, what's so surprising about that ?

As for the footage apparently showing an 8-track at Western in fall 1966, it wasn't a true 8-track, as explained in their inhouse magazine of the time. You couldn't record on all the tracks at once without some extreme modification. If Western had such a thing, then why would Brian go to Columbia at all ?

Let's forget about this Dynatrak thing. It really isn't relevant to any discussion here.

If you have an 8-track 3M M23 with Dynatrak, you can change it to a standard 8-track if you want to. You have the option to choose 4-tracks with lower noise, or 8-tracks standard.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Most likely scenario is that BW rented the Scully from Heider and brought it in. Not really that weird.

Except that, supposedly, at this point Heider didn't have an 8-track either.  CBS, under the traditional lore, was the only place in town.  And Heider's 8-track was a 3M, anyway, right?

[DonnyL]

So... the first hand evidence of the company newsletter and someone who actually worked in the studio at the time is to be disregarded for what someone sees in a few seconds of film footage some 20 years later and deduces ?

Jesus, I'm sometimes arrogant, but this is arrogance elevated to a whole new cosmic level. There's no point in researching any more, is there, because all that really matters is what people with no connection to the industry think.

Know something ? I think "Good Vibrations" wasn't ever released as a single at all, so don't try to persuade me otherwise with such pointless 'evidence' as an actual copy of the 45, OK ?

AGD, I just read the old thread and by the end of it you seemed to be as unsure as any of us what the make and model of that machine was, and our best evidence was only that the machine in the BB footage did not look like other identified Dynatrack machines, and the fact that it was running 1" tape.

I know how much you enjoy being angry, but I think it's recurring problems like these that actually make it more worth researching, and not giving up--building on what we slowly uncover and not reverting to the old-standbys.

If the thing is a Dynatrack 4-track, why is it running 1" tape?

For the record, a 3M M23 4-track w/ Dynatrack setup is 1" tape. It actually is an 8-track, doubled up to reduce noise. Not that it's relevant here because the machine in the photo is a Scully ! (and you can easily setup a Dynatrak 3M for true 8-track use!)

[DonnyL]

What I don't understand is why this is being discussed again. I provided all of this information in the previous thread. None of this is opinion, it is all verifiable. AGD, you are either going to have to trust me or do the research yourself. I suggest starting by joining the Ampex and Scully mailing lists, where some posts in this thread would be laughable.

[DonnyL]

Most likely scenario is that BW rented the Scully from Heider and brought it in. Not really that weird.

Except that, supposedly, at this point Heider didn't have an 8-track either.  CBS, under the traditional lore, was the only place in town.  And Heider's 8-track was a 3M, anyway, right?

Hmm, perhaps lore indeed. Well, either he rented it from somewhere, or the studio was auditioning it from Scully while deciding on what deck to purchase. They may have ultimately chosen the 3M ... which has a much more refined transport, and the 'Dynatrak' option may have appealed to them.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

What I don't understand is why this is being discussed again. I provided all of this information in the previous thread. None of this is opinion, it is all verifiable. AGD, you are either going to have to trust me or do the research yourself. I suggest starting by joining the Ampex and Scully mailing lists, where this thread would be laughable.

In AGDs defense, and partly in mine too, I suppose, this is a hard pill to swallow because in my case for 12 years or so and in Doe's case probably 30 years, we've pinned our research on the only commercially available 8-track in LA being at CBS, until mid-ish '67.

Everything we know about Brian's working methods around the transition from Smile into Smiley is based on the division of studios.  Tracks at Western and Gold Star, Columbia for vocals, etc, etc.  Brian leaving the safe confines of Western for the more clinical atmosphere of CBS--there's so many points that have come to rest on the lack of an 8-track anywhere other than this one place until a very specific time.

So it's a bit of a shock to the system.