The Smiley Smile Message Board

I hadn't seen this till today and as far as I can tell it hasn't been posted on the board. Interesting.

http://www.wreckingcrewfilm.com/premiumarminsteiner/index.html

Hmmmm.  I must say I'm unfamiliar with who Armin Steiner is, in relation to where or when he engineered for the BBs.  I wonder if this is in relation to the Smile or Smiley Smile version of the song.

Armin Steiner ran Sound Recorders studio. Parts of both the April 1967 and June 1967 versions of "Vegetables" were recorded with Steiner at Sound Recorders, so I am not sure which session he is talking about. I bet someone on the board knows. If I had to put money on it, I would guess the April 1967 sessions.

I'm not sure why they had to put Vegetables on the floor.

oh wait, it's because Brian was really really high.

April 1967
  4 - Smile session: Vega Tables ['verse' incl. vocals &'Sleep a Lot' - Sound Recorders]
  5 - Smile session: Vega-Tables [vocals - Sound Recorders]
  6 - Smile session: Vega-Tables [vocals - Sound Recorders]
  7 - Smile session: Vega-Tables [vocals - Sound Recorders]
11 - Smile session: Vega-Tables ['chorus 1' and '2nd chorus' vocals - Sound Recorders]
12 - Smile session: Vega-Tables ['insert part 4' (SR) and 'fade part 4' GS): 2 sessions -
        Gold Star & Sound Recorders]
13 - Smile session: Vega-Tables [vocals - Sound Recorders] [BW]
14 - Smile session: Vega-Tables ['ballad insert' vocals - Sound Recorders] [BW]

June
  3 - Smiley Smile session: Vegetables vocals [Sound Recorders]

Steiner owned Sound Recorders, and it was the second LA studio with 8-track capability, I think.

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/ (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... ;D

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 ?

On the first part, I agree, and I said that Steiner could have made a mistake in how he remembered it. If Bruce says something different, he'd be a higher authority obviously because Columbia was his "home base" of a studio.

The second part, you've tapped into the same aspect of this which has been troubling me, the part that I believe several of us were trying to figure out in the thread about that film. This was my question as well, why did Brian bother with Columbia if his favorite studio, and the engineering staff who allowed him to be "hands on" and actually work the board controls during a mix, had similar capabilities?

Remember that the 8-track machine shown behind Brian and Chuck in that film shows all 8 meter needles moving as the tape is playing, which means there are/were 8 tracks simultaneously running as the film was being shot. So it remains to be seen what they were doing, but my guess at that time and still is my guess would be that was a mix session, and they were obviously running 8 tracks simultaneous from the 8-track reel of tape also shown in that clip.

So assuming Western did have that machine, or assuming even Brian had rented that machine, placing it in Western 3 on that piece of film suggests they did have access to 8 track in '66. I can't get past the proof of the 8 needles moving on the meters, which we can see clearly in the film. So the decision to track at Columbia...great question. Scheduling and availability issues? The preference of that room over Western or Gold Star for vocals-only sessions? A better place to record vocals in general after the instrumental tracks were done? Or something else entirely?

At one time, I think it was entirely due to Western not having 8 tracks, but at the time of that film it looks like they did.

You say 1966 - why do you think that ?

This was all in that original thread, which I can't recall right now - It could very well be an early '67 session at Western, and I'm wrong on '66: First, Carl is shown reading a German pop magazine with Ringo on the cover that when dated would have been current in fall of 66, and if it lines up with when the Beach Boys were on the European tour Oct/Nov '66, they could have picked it up when they were on that tour. So assume it's after November 1966, at Western, and Van Dyke is there, and firehats are in the studio. The firehats could be or probably are a red herring?

Do you think it could be January '67 in that film? It would fit.

Sure as hell not the "Fire" session as claimed. First post-touring session at Western was on January 5th 1967

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

Yeah, Me Too!  :)

Yes, Motown had an eight track machine in 1964, constructed in house using other machines and parts. Much like the process described in this thread with 8-track machines at Columbia and Sound Recorders, the engineers working at Motown built the machine themselves, converting-adapting-using parts. That original machine is on display at the Motown Museum. I'd say a great majority of the hits from 64-onward were cut on this machine. And there was also one small tidbit in an article from well over 20 years ago that said something about Motown's send/return setup, or the number of busses they had on the console, or some triviality was a big part of how they got some of their characteristic sounds, but I really can't recall the details.

I can have more details on names of engineers and whatnot, but that's scattered around various books and magazines, old issues of TapeOp or Mix, etc. If there is an interest, I'll look for all that stuff.

Atlantic is more fascinating. Tom Dowd - by all means get the DVD documentary on his life, it's terrific - was an engineer at Atlantic, and got the Erteguns and Wexler to invest in buying an 8-track machine direct from Ampex in 1957.

1957!!!  :)

The only commercial 8-track machine prior to that was owned by Les Paul working with Ampex (he basically got their machines and tinkered with them, then they looked over his designs and adapted them or gave him what he needed...if I'm remembering that right), and I believe Les still had his original 8-track in his collection when he died.

So Atlantic got their 8-track, had it installed in '58, and began using it on sessions. Some of the most famous are the classic Ray Charles tracks from the late 50's, like What I'd Say, some classic jazz albums, Coasters, blues/R&B. Basically it's a good bet that if you see Tom Dowd's name on an album, and it's on Atlantic, and was recorded sometime in '58 or '59 (into the 60's), that was most likely the Ampex 8-track which was used on the sessions. And most of those late 50's Atlantic albums with Dowd at the board are simply amazing.

So apart from Les Paul's home studio experiments (and he was running 8 tracks very early), Atlantic in New York with Tom Dowd at the board (usually) and the Erteguns/Wexler financing and running the company had a commercial studio recording on an 8 track Ampex machine in 1958-59. This is why I always raise an eyebrow whenever an interview or article mentions "we had the *first* eight track studio...", etc. perhaps in Hollywood, but not elsewhere. Specifically New York.  :)

A disclaimer: I can provide more specifics for anyone interested but a lot of my references are in books and magazines, some of which have a coating of dust on them and aren't readily available, but I will definitely search if necessary. So a lot of that is in my memory of reading those and other things like seminars, classes, lectures, etc. where certain info was dropped. Not to mention the internet...so a lot of this stuff is out there with a few web searches, especially the stuff on Tom Dowd. I'll gladly try to provide any additional info as this kind of thing fascinates me.


(Minor clarification: Les Paul *bought* the first 8-track from Ampex that rolled out of their factory. He may have tinkered with many other Ampex items earlier in the 50's, but he actually bought the first production model for his studio. Tom Dowd's machine installed and used at Atlantic from '58-onward was the *second* Ampex 8-track machine. Those were the first two commercially sold examples.)

A fascinating piece of history related to the 8-track at Atlantic: This is a news item which appeared in Billboard March 2, 1959. It appears the cost of Tom Dowd's 8-track and other recording expenses caused Atlantic to raise prices on their albums! Notice the article mentions "the only other model" supposedly being at Capitol - now we know Les Paul had bought the other machine.

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/billboardmar21959.jpg)

The April 1967 United and Affiliates newsletter announced in an article titled "New eight track recorder for United and Western", "After an engineering survey of machines of various manufacturer, they selected 3-M Company's model C401 with delivery of the first two units scheduled for early May".

Here's the recollections of Phill Sawyer regarding what some folk thought was an early 8-track at Western (circa 1966):

"But Western studio 1 was a new room; there was a new generation of recording console sitting in the studio 1 control room; there were new, clean, solid-state modular channel amps handling the signal, and, against the wall, the 3M "4-channel Dynatrack" recorder. Did he know what to do with all this? Certainly he knew what good recording was all about. But multi-track was a different animal. Only a few years old, 4-track recording was revolutionizing the music world. A new way to conceptualize the process of composing and producing was now possible with this new multi-track mentality. Some were faster than others in getting into it. Breakthrough 4-track recordings were being produced by many in the new rock world of England and the US, but not everybody got the point. The 3M "4-channel Dynatrack" machine had come to United and Western (all machines were shared between the two studios; the machines-on-wheels scooted back and forth all day and all evening). "Dynatrack" was 3M's scheme to provide more headroom, lower noise in 4-channel recording by using two tracks for each of the four channels - one set at a higher recording level; with the playback signal seamlessly switched (that's the trick) between the two tracks to achieve the desired result. It worked fine."

Thus, technically eight tracks, but practically, a four-track using two channels for each track... which would explain all eight needles moving.

Haven't we done this before?  I thought the consensus was that it was not a dynatrack andwe had to deal with the reality that there was an 8-track in Western.

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?

That thread is, by the way:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10570.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10570.0.html)

And the page of that thread with photos and this exact discussion is here: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10570.50.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10570.50.html)

This is a 3M Dynatrack in use at Western in 1967:
(http://www.uaudio.com/media/blog/2009/06/heritage_frank.jpg)

This is the Scully-based 8-track machine being used by Brian and Chuck on two Smile-era sessions at Western:
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brianfilm1.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brian200.jpg)

Those are two different tape machines - the newsletter refers to a different machine than what is shown behind Brian and Chuck in those two shots. The deduction I made months ago comes from comparing the two and saying they're not the same, which is obvious from the film and the still photos. I stand by it.

As for the other comments, I don't understand what escalated it to that level.

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. 

It's hard to parse, but the dynatrack would have been this weird 4-track with 8-track capabilities, and according to the newsletter, that was around.  I don't think we have any timeline as to what showed up first, but you would think the dynatrack "4-track" would predate the true Scully-based 8-track we see in the film and photos.  But--this is still cutting edge stuff here.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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.

Yeah.   :'(

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brianwestern2.jpg)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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)].

[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.

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!

'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.

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:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/briantapemachine.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/briantapemachine2.jpg)

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... :-D

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!)

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.

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.

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.

I get it, but you guys also need to understand that there is a Scully 280/284 8-track being used in that footage. If you show the footage to anyone who is familiar with '60s recording machines, they will confirm this. I'm not certain of anything else surrounding this mystery, but I am 100% certain of this.

If my credentials are in dispute, show the footage to Mark Linnet, who has a Scully 280 4-track; I'm certain he will confirm this.

I think it also goes to show that our minds need to be open to the 'everything you know is wrong' possibilities ... which makes it pretty exciting, doesn't it ?!

No dispute from me at all.  I was just trying to finesse Mr. Doe back into the fray in baby steps.

Linett, incidentally, is another person who has based a lot of his research on the "one 8-track and it was at CBS" theory.

I've been researching a bit more since guitarfool notified me of this thread, and I'll post some things as I find them.

* Wally's first 8-track was indeed '67, and it was a 3M M23 (non-Dynatrak). The '67 Hawaii shows were recorded with TWO of these (not at the same time, but likely to keep the tape going the whole time). An 8-buss console was specifically built (by Frank DeMedio and Dale Manquen) for this event as well.

My best theory with the info we have is that Western was auditioning 8-tracks in late '66/early '67, and eventually settled on the 3M M23. They must have only had this Scully briefly, since I've never seen any footage of any other group's session with the Scully there.

... which brings up the possibility that it was rented for a Beach Boys session. Who knows where BW may have rented it from. But the WHY is easy -- he wanted 8-tracks and he wanted to record at Western.

Then he should definitely check out the footage !

Dynatrak models do have the Sync option.

I know it gets into a sensitive issue with privacy and not bugging someone running a business, but if there is a remote chance that Mark Linett would be able to take a look and offer a few comments and maybe shed more light on this, I have the film and a series of more still screen shots which I took from that film readily available.

I'm not in a position to do it out of the blue, but if someone would be able to facilitate a contact with Mark, it would mean a lot to us and this discussion. And out of everyone in 2012, he is without a doubt that person who has handled those tapes more than anyone, and quite possibly has threaded up that very same 1" tape which we see Brian and Chuck working with in the film.

And to add onto the discussion, since so much has since appeared here versus the older thread, I have watched the film several times since this thread and I noticed there is an assistant engineer shown wearing a white shirt, necktie, and a red firehat operating what looks like the 2-track, 1/2" machine that would handle the mixdowns after going through the board. If you were standing in studio 3, this machine can be seen in several shots off to the far left of the control room, next to the board.

This could mean what we see on the film was a mixdown session, which would go to that particular 2-track machine, or the assistant merely copying the rough mix of that day's work - whatever that was - onto a smaller reel for Brian to take home. Or, the mixdown on tape to be cut to an acetate, whichever.

Not that it adds much to the discussion, but I never really caught what that guy with the hat and tie was doing in the film until this week.

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brianhat.jpg)

This is the guy, leaning over what I think is the 2-track tape machine where the mix is being fed. I don't recognize him at all from any other Western-United photos I have seen.

It does seem like it might be a mix or playback.

(PS - that would be a 1/4" mono mixdown deck. can't see the machine enough to know what it is).

Do you have a link to the actual video? I think I have this on VHS somewhere but I can't find it.

couldn't find any info about an 8-track at Western prior to spring '67 w/ the 3M M23 on the Ampex or Scully lists. Still looking around though. That newsletter does mention they selected the 3M after reviewing other machines, so there's a chance they had a Scully there briefly and let BW use it for this session.

Incidentally, my friend Kelley has one of the original early '60s Ampex 351 8-track 1" machines, you can see a picture of him with it at this link (scroll down a little):

http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/7951-positive-destruction-san-franciscos-new-garage-rock/

this shows you how large these machines are and how they are modular. The 1" transport is behind him, and the rack on the left houses the 8 electronics modules (tube).

Oh, I trust you. This is your area of expertise and I respect that - and your posts are fascinating reading. I recall someone (Bruce, I think) saying they tried recording up at Brian's place on the rented Scully but it just didn't pan out.

Be interested in your take on my #1 sticking point: given there seems to have been a functioning 8-track at his go-to studio in January 1967, where he could run the board himself... why keep using Columbia, a studio where he wasn't even allowed to touch the board ?

Maybe he just really loved the sound of the vocals recorded at Columbia.

I think there might be some truth in this.  By the time Western got this 8-track (unless of course, they were indeed just long-term auditioning it in which case things change a bit) Brian was used to his routine and came to like the vocal sound he was getting over there.  I mean, it's not like CBS isn't literally right across the street.

It could even be he just wanted [or wanted to maintain] the Columbia sound for H&V in particular.

My best guess is either:

* BW rented it from somewhere for whatever period of time (a week?), and left it at Western for this particular session(s). This theory has a lot of holes I can't fill in.

* Western were auditioning 8-tracks, and let BW use it during a short period in time (maybe Chuck or someone even pulled it out when they weren't supposed to or something).  More likely scenario, but still has some holes. Scully sales reps may have been wooing the studio? Or maybe, they actually had the Scully and didn't like it for whatever reason and returned it, then ordered the 3M and made the 8-track announcement. There may have been some time between returning the Scully and obtaining te 3M. The thing is, I've never read about any of this or seen the Scully at Western anywhere other than this footage ... which sort of supports the other theory ! (with bigger holes)

Barring any kind of calibration issues between Columbia's tape machine and whatever else was in town, if Brian did in fact have access to an 8 track at Western it would solve the issue of him being allowed to work the board, and mix his tracks "hands on". If all he needed Columbia for was vocals and if he liked the vocal sound he could get at Columbia, and that would seem to be the case, he could take those tapes back to Western with Chuck. Vosse and Anderle had mentioned Brian working the board during Smile and specifically Chuck letting him do it, so it would have had to be at Western.

The sticking point for me isn't as much Brian having the 8 track at Western, as the film would prove he did, but rather *when* did he get that capability, i.e. when did Western get that 8 track as seen in the film? Sometime after Pet Sounds would be an obvious assumption, but who knows until more info comes out.

I remember there was a similar discussion about the process of mixing Pet Sounds between studios and between the 4-track and 8-track formats, and based on all the accepted knowledge Brian would have to bounce the tracks from Columbia in order to mix at Western, if he even made it a practice to mix at Western during Pet Sounds...and by all indications he did, with Chuck.

And as someone said, the assumptions that Columbia was the only 8 track in town seem to have been proven wrong. I think sometimes that Beach Boys-related assumption carried over to suggest Columbia was one of the only 8 tracks at this specific time, and a few pages ago the examples of Sound Recorders with Steiner, Atlantic in 1958 (NYC) and Motown around 64 (Detroit) show otherwise.

Yet there are several shots in the recently released films of the GV vocal session at Columbia showing Brian clearly touching the board and working some of those old rotary faders as the "official" Columbia engineer is holding a stopwatch to time something on the track/mix.

So I'd even call that into question as a general practice versus first-hand accounts of isolated incidents at Columbia, in light of seeing Brian working that board actually unfolding on camera.  :)

This still from the GV session shows Brian working Columbia's board:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/briancolumbiaboard.jpg)

I think what we're learning is conventional wisdom might be a little too conventional ...

I don't doubt Columbia was the only 8-track in town for the bulk of '65-'66 though. By late '67, the game was changing with 12 and 16-track coming around. So that year was probably filled with lots of changes; it's no wonder memories can't exactly keep up.

OK, so, new scenario:

CBS gets the 8-track before everybody else.

Brian goes over there and likes working with 8-tracks, and can get away with touching the board, say, because of Bruce.  (Even though Bruce denies this.)

Western starts experimenting with 8-tracks earlier than we thought--but doesn't OWN one yet.

Brian starts being able to bring 8-tracks back with him from CBS to Western to mix.

Western gets a permanent 3M in time for when we know they had it.



This plays on a question I once had--

I noticed that many of the CBS-tracked Lead vocals were recorded dry, and yet clearly have loads of reverb on them in the final mixes.  I wondered if Brian did that because he preferred the sound of Western's chambers.  Then somebody pointed out to me that they would have to have had mixed them (awesome use of the English language there, thank you) at CBS on the 8-track since that was the only one.  Maybe I was on to something originally?

The last part is my thought exactly, too, and a question I posed on another thread - if Columbia had the only 8 track (When did Steiner get his 8 track at Sound???), and he recorded vocals on 8 track tape at Columbia, he would have had to mix at Columbia, common sense deduction, because no other machine could play back that tape unless it was bounced/sub-mixed/reduced to 4. But he didn't, at least so we're told, because Chuck Britz was usually involved in mixing with Brian in 65-66. And Chuck was at Western.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Sounds plausible to me. did Western have a board capable of handling 8 at this time? It was a 12-channel board, right?

There's also something I touched upon in another thread somewhere, re: Where was Pet Sounds mixed? Some anecdotes seem to suggest it was mixed in a single session (Fred Vail, etc.), yet we know it had 4 & 8 track, and was recorded at various studios, etc ... If it were mixed in a single session, it would have to have been Columbia, supposedly the only studio w/ 8 & 4-track. Yet Steve Hoffman talks about the 'step' fades on the board at Western. He said that some of the Pet Sounds tracks (and I've also heard this on some Summer Days tracks) have the '2db steps' or something, essentially the fades are not smooth, they go in steps and end kind of abruptly. The problem is these fades have been 'fixed' by most mastering/cutting engineers on most pressings (vinyl and CD), but not all. My theory was that the 'step' pots were actually on the Columbia board (and Hoffman mistakenly assumed it was Western), since I noticed the step fades on songs that were cut on 8-track ... specifically I recall 'Here Today' and 'God Only Knows'. Maybe Mark L. knows if the Western board has the step faders or not?

Can someone write out a list of Summer Days and Pet Sounds tracks and which ones were 4 and which ones were 8 and where they were recorded? I don't have any info handy. I can listen to some old vinyl and try to figure it out (I have a few different pressings).

In any case, if we can determine that the songs w/ 'step' fades were all 8-track recordings, then we can presume that they were mixed at Columbia, and the 4-track songs were mixed at Western.

THEN, if we can find any vintage late '66 or '67 mixes that were recorded on 8-track WITHOUT the step fades, then we know those were mixed at Western, from 8-track.

You follow me ?!?

come to think of it, I think 'Darlin' and some other Wild Honey tracks have the step fades, anyone know where that was mixed?

I just find it weird that so many '65-'66 tracks would have been mixed at Columbia ...

WIBN - 8
YSBIM - 4
TNM - 4
DT(PYHOMS) - 4
IWFTD - 8
LGAFA - 4
SJB - 4
GOK - 8
IKTAA - 4
HT - 8
IJWMFTT - 8
PS - 4
CN - 4

Right?

It would be weird because many firsthand sources including Chuck Britz himself have said that Brian mixed with Chuck most often at this time. And if we do the math, even on Pet Sounds, the instrumental tracks cut at Western and at Gold Star were on 4 track, any vocals then done after the instrumentals were done and moved to 8 track were at Columbia...and no one but Columbia did the mixes if the others in town didn't have 8 track machines. Didn't I say that earlier? :)

Anyway, the film where I got that still frame has a scene of the engineer and Brian again at the Columbia board. A stopwatch is seen laying on the board. The engineer takes two large rotary faders, and at the same time slowly moves one fully counterclockwise and the other fully clockwise, and at the same time Brian's hands come up off the board almost in sync as the engineer's hands pop up, and the engineer clicks the stopwatch immediately.

For those who have mixed tracks on old-school analog from a tape machine without automation...for the record I have and DonnyL obviously has so I'm not talking sh*t far out of my experience level in music here...Brian and the engineer at Columbia were *mixing the track at Columbia*, in this case Good Vibrations, and it looks like they had to do a fade within a certain time, hence the stopwatch for timing. A fade or a crossfade, who the hell knows at this point. :)

Now that makes sense with the 4-track versus 8-track issue, via mixing at Columbia, and if you watch it they are clearly mixing and doing a timed fade somewhere in the song. Just like Brian and Chuck are mixing something from the Scully 8-track in the other silent film.

It just confuses an already confusing issue, but it proves 1. Tracks were in fact mixed at Columbia in '66 and 2. Brian was allowed to touch the controls on the Columbia board perhaps more than what we may have assumed based on previous comments.

Unless there were additional unlisted mix sessions held for Wild Honey, it was done at Wally Heider's or at the transitional home studio at Brian's, before it became a more permanent setup...does this sound right?

After May 1967 it appeared Brian all but abandoned his favorite studios like Western, Gold Star, Columbia, etc. So the chances of him mixing anything at those studios at the time of Wild Honey would be slim to none. And Heider had 8 tracks and a replica of Western 3 anyway. But I could be mistaken.

That WH was mixed at WH's is certainly, I think, the conventional wisdom--but that's not worth much, it seems.

sounds right to me. I just listened through the fades on a bunch of different pressings, and can't deduce much ... seems like there was too much 'help' from the cutting engineers, and lots of too-early fadeouts ... 'Here Today' is the only one that is really noticeably fading in 'steps' consistently.

I know for sure I have heard lots of step-fades on '65-'67 material when I was younger, I wish I could remember where. Maybe it was just on specific pressings.

Anyone have the most recent Steve Hoffman 'straight transfer' Pet Sounds? I think that's the only one where he left in the step fades. I have the 1993 version, and he 'helped' it along for the most part.

Ok, so post-Smiley, I guess it doesn't matter too much, since 8-track was readily available. I also don't know of a source for Wild Honey with the correct fades. Someone would have to listen to the actual, original mix tapes.

The thing is, the 'step-fade' thing seems to be specific to Summer Days-Wild Honey era. I don't think anything from 'Today' or before has the step-fades, and certainly it's gone by 'Friends'. Which in my mind, sort of pinpoints it to an 8-track Columbia thing.

So, I'm gonna go with any of the 'step-fade' tracks being mixed at Columbia (at least pre-Smiley). As to which ones these are, it may be difficult to find out. I know of one fairly comprehensive obscure release that seemed to have the raw fades throughout. I'm trying to track it down but it may take awhile. (PM me if you want to know the release -- maybe you can help me find one ... I had it when I was a kid).

'Sunshine Dream' was the closest I could find so far ... 'Here Today' is present without any help at all, and quite jarring. I have a feeling '80s-era Capitol reissues may be the most revealing.

I'd volunteer for that listening assignment.  ;D

As of right now, I have no reason to doubt WH was mixed at Heider's ... just a vague memory of some WH tracks step-fading ... but Heider may very well have had a board like that too.

That makes a lot of sense. I think Brian preferred the combinations he could get at Western. Spector probably needed the two echo chambers at Gold Star because he had fewer tracks to work with, but if Brian had 8 it seems like he would have all the flexibility that he needed.
I don't really know a lot about how it worked in the studio, that's something I'm always trying to find out more about, but nobody seems to really have a definite answer. The way I imagine it is in stages. A few inputs would be sent to the echo chamber, and then, at Gold Star, the output would be sent to the second echo chamber to be combined further with other inputs.  

I like your theories so far, with the step-fading. I'm thinking could it have been an issue with similar or common components used in several boards/modules rather than one specific board or one specific volume/fader pot in that board? Meaning if Heider was using a part when building his boards and he may have used the same parts with the same characteristics as Columbia had used in their board or even in Putnam's modules, it would be the same kind of effect across all of them.

I'm really stretching there, but it would be similar to putting a part with a specific flaw into three different car engines, and they'd all show up with the same flaw no matter what chassis it was.

I saw your thread about the Wall Of Sound and was excited to get some discussions rolling! I do have specific info about some of those sounds from several sources, as soon as things slow down elsewhere I'll get them to you.

ok, I listened very carefully to the 1993 DCC w/ good headphones, and although Hoffman did manually fade himself, you can still hear the steps.

1 - WIBN - STEPS
2 - YSBIM - (no steps)
3 - That's Not Me - (no steps)
4 - Don't Talk - STEPS
5 - IWFTD - STEPS
6 - LGAFA - STEPS
7 - Sloop - (no steps)
8 - God - STEPS
9 - IKTAA - STEPS
10 - Here Today - STEPS
11 - IJWMFTT - STEPS
12 - Pet Sounds - (no steps)
13 - Caroline No - (no steps)

so ... the 8-track songs ALL have steps, and some of the 4-track songs. But there are no 8-track songs that don't have steps. So, I'd say the ones with steps were mixed at Columbia ... meaning some of the 4-track stuff was mixed there and some wasn't.

Just a theory of course. Would love for anyone with the 2009 Hoffman remaster to have a listen to confirm and chime in.

So how does that mixing process work, if you don't mind explaining it a little.
Did Columbia have a four track and an 8 track? What exactly was on the 8 track? One track with lead vocals, and then how many for background vocals? One for each voice?
Did Brian reduce his four track tape down to one track of the eight track immediately? Or did he take the voices and overdubs from the eight track and one by one combine them with the contents of the four track?

I hope I'm phrasing that coherently. I mean, did Brian say start by taking the lead vocal and mixing it with just one of the instrumental tracks in the echo chamber, and then putting the result onto a single track, and then repeating that process until everything had been used up.

Mark Linett explained the Pet Sounds track-bouncing process you're asking about in several interviews and articles in more detail, but check out this thread from the archives of this board: Some of your questions are answered.

And it's funny to see the same issues raised then as have been in this thread. And others.  :)

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,9040.50.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,9040.50.html)

Thanks a lot. I find the whole topic fascinating, and the closer I listen to some recordings, the more I appreciate the sophistication of the techniques. I've been trying to find a good book about production and sound design, but I can't find one that's really in depth. Do you know of any serious books that dissect all this in detail? What I'd really like is a book that gave a whole history of recording technology beginning with Edison. Something especially comprehensive.
I end up getting disappointed when I buy books that are supposed to be on this subject, because they're always very vague, and emphasize biography and anecdote more than they do actual technical understanding.

Fishmonk - This is the closest I know to what you're looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Perfecting-Sound-Forever-History-Recorded/dp/0865479380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342324877&sr=1-1&keywords=perfecting+sound+forever

This is the book I used, it may seem dated a bit (I got mine early 90's) but the information is terrific: "Sound Advice: The Musician's Guide To The Recording Studio" by Wayne Wadhams. It touches on everything from microphone placement to compressor settings to some of the physics involved in all of it, and everything in between. There is a CD included as well, and a ton of diagrams and examples. It's a great balance between technical and semi-technical, although it's not much on history.

For modern recording techniques, via DAW and all of that, if you get recording software and it comes with a tutorial, that would be a great place to start. Then practically any book on modern recording should be just fine.

Here's the Sound Advice book:
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Advice-Musicians-Recording-Studio/dp/0028726944 (http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Advice-Musicians-Recording-Studio/dp/0028726944)

Bought this book in a thrift shop with high hopes and expectations. Bit disappointed as it focuses a LOT on the sound wars on CD. Multi-track recording from the 50s and the 60s is covered, but rather superficially. What we really need - or maybe should collaborate on - is a book about the evolution of multi-track recording in LA 1955-1970.

That would be very worthwhile. I'd really like a book that tried to define what production was, that looked in depth at different key records in the history of sound design and critiqued them in an intelligent way. And then if you combined that with a description of different recording technologies, multitracking; flanging; echo; distortion; etc, as well as the history of their development and use, you'd start to have a very interesting book.
And if you also included an essay about the physiology of perceiving sound, and how that figures into how we listen to records, you could really cover a lot of ground.

I bet there are people on this board who could write all those essays, and if you all put them into a short anthology, it would incredibly useful and informative.

I'd love to see the 55-70 LA period book ... with as many details as possible. Personally, I could do without any kind of philosophical/psychological stuff though ... plenty of books that cover that stuff already.

There has been some talk over the years of putting together a book like this.  I've even toyed with getting a Ph.D. on the subject at UCLA.  The key to such a book being successful would, I think, be having a good mix of technical information, photos, and some personality in there.

I think the stories of a lot of the people involved could be proper biographies by themselves.  Well, Bill Putnam alone.  But that generation of men, who went off to war and came back with some technical expertise, like Chuck, or younger guys who were geeks and music lovers and really got into the scene, like a Desper–these are great personal stories that could be mixed with dry discussion of the circuitry of a Putnam 610 channel.

With plenty of nice photography, I've always envisioned a Beatles Anthology style coffee-table book.

I have really weird tastes I guess. I read a lot of classical music criticism and really prefer the precision and insight those books offer over the anecdotal and conversational style of most books on rock music.

I'd like to see a book that married aesthetic criticism, biography, physics, musicology, etc. I've always wanted something like a rock and roll version of Berlioz's Treatise on Instrumentation. A book that was built on real scholarly research and written in a serious way.

A sort of journal format would be cool. There could be an essay length critical biography of some producer or engineer, another essay examining his production aesthetic through criticism of his key singles, and then you could put essays in that vein alongside ones that looked at the history of a particular recording technology, or of an instrument, or maybe even a recording studio.

Just a book that covered production from multiple angles, showed considerable historical knowledge, and maintained a consistent style of scholarly criticism is the type of book I'm constantly hoping to find, but I'm not sure it exists yet.

I've always felt recordings from the '60s were so great because they were the product of the tech-y 'straight man' engineers mixed with the wide-eyed wonder of kids who didn't know any better than to naively push the boundaries ... seems like by the time we got to the '70s, all of the 'standards' had been developed and recordings lost the unique charms of the previous era.

I still think it's unbelievable that we really don't know when or where 'Pet Sounds' was mixed! Seems like basic stuff, yet all we have are assumptions and guesses, really.

personally, that kind of book would bore me to tears ... although I appreciate that there is a place for that.

recording in L.A. in the '60s is one of the most exciting things I can think of. You can tell there was a real energy and magic happening ... the book should reflect that.  That's something I've always liked about Domenic Priore's writing ... he may not have always had all the correct info, but he certainly knows how to capture that cosmic California enthusiasm. Ditto Greg Shaw and BOMP!

That sounds great--but it wouldn't sell.  I wouldn't care a whole lot about sales, but a book like that would require funding to put together.  It's not something you slap together in your spare time.

I work at a bookstore, and sad to say Berlioz's treatise sat on the shelf for years.  I think I might have even bought it out of pity even though I already had a copy.

I guess that's why Andrew suggested the collaborative approach. And I'm sure if you offered it by subscription there would be a lot of people on these internet boards who'd sign up. Start by finding contributors, decide on an editorial board, and then aim to put out an issue a year or something.
Certainly a lot of work, and the results would definitely be sort a niche thing, but I think that's why a book like this should be written. This is a niche I'm sure a lot of us would like to see filled, there's a demand for this type of book (maybe not a huge demand, but a demand nonetheless).

Almost a magazine approach.

Yeah basically a journal of rock criticism, aesthetics, and recording history.

I think the main stumbling block would be the fact that a lot of that information is available through active discussions online, on various message boards, forums, blogs, etc...so many that it's overwhelming to cross-post a question and forget which boards to check in with to see if anyone replied.

The power of the internet is that such discussions are liquid, and can evolve rapidly or slowly over time, depending on the availability of the information. If you cement that kind of thing into a book form, the information has to be airtight, factually correct and checked many times, and somewhat timeless because the moment something appears in such a book as fact, and a year later something turns up in the form of a tape, or photo, or film, or session log in some random person's dad's attic, the book has a black mark on it..."this is out of date".

The other drawback is with certain topics, specifically centered around media/music/pop culture, which is ever-changing, a lot of folks simply go to the internet for their references. It would be a tall order to create a book on recording unless it becomes strictly historical, and even those fall out of date as new information comes out, or certain accepted facts become less factual as more evidence is offered by a larger group of people, i.e. those folks posting things online which maybe the researchers and authors had never seen before.

That said, I'd skip the essays and the philosophy and also the technical diagrams and have a historical book based solely on pictures with brief histories behind them.

I REALLY wanted that for the Smile sessions, just a nice collection of dozens of photos from Jasper and Guy Webster presented in an organized way, in high-quality prints. I'd be happy, I'd buy multiple copies for gifts. Honestly I don;t understand why there is such a reluctance to put more of those photos out, not just Beach Boys stuff - they tell a beautiful story of the studios and the people working in them.

I find a lot of the info I'd like to have really difficult to find online, sometimes it's really not there. There's more we don't know than we know !

for instance, what tape formula was each album recorded and mixed onto? which tape deck? I can deduce some general info (most from '63-'68 was probably on Scotch 201/202/203, probably on an Ampex 3XX or Scully 280 deck, 3M M23 from '68-'69, and 3M M56 '70-'71). The info from Desper has filled in a lot of blanks re: '68-'71. the info is something which can be found with a tape survey, but it is not documented anywhere, like it is with groups like the Beatles.

We all seem to want different things, books that focus only on this or that particular subject, but I don't see that as a stumbling block at all, I see it as the thing that really affords this, so far, hypothetical book with the lion's share of its' potential.

I can't help but see these various niche topics as all being interconnected, and I honestly believe their intermingling serves, not to diminish their individual effects, but rather to enhance those effects significantly.

It has gradually grown into an accepted platitude that rock musicians of bygone eras used all the talents at their disposal to "elevate" the music of their time, to make what material they had on hand into genuine works of art. Part of the reason why they never fully succeeded I think, is that there was no real reciprocal  development in criticism to meet them.

Criticism and art go together hand in hand, the one refines the other. Their interdependence ensures that when one falters, the other will likewise share in his injuries, when one makes a wrong turn, the other will lose his way at the same juncture, and when one is overtaken in route by a band of thieves, the other will almost certainly be swindled by the same men.

By combining a variety of approaches, by tackling things from many different angles at once, I think the proposed book would achieve more in the service of the music than the different attempts would have otherwise achieved individually. Aesthetic criticism shows more insight with greater historical contextualization. The history of recording technology enjoys a greater immediacy in its' effect when we see that history demonstrated for us through a critique of the music which utilized that technology.

I believe that a collaborative, or multidisciplinary effort would yield the best fruit. "Recording Art", "Production", "Sound Design", these are ideas that can and should be put into sharper focus, historically and artistically. In order to do that I think the concept needs to be treated through a discussion, in turn, of each of its' constituent elements. The parts will furnish the whole with its greatest meaning, and the whole will bind all the parts together and reveal the intimate relationship between them.

I was reading through the Desper thread, and I totally forgot, he confirmed the tape deck immediately as well, for anyone still skeptical that there was a Scully 1" 8-track at Western, '66-'67:

DonnyL: talk about a blast from the past! I forgot about that, thanks for posting. Between DonnyL and Desper confirming what it was, case closed for that part of the mystery. I'm glad those posters whose word is more trusted than mine were able to set the record straight, for history's sake. Onto the other questions about that film.

For those interested in following the backstory, I was just able to piece together another part of the history behind these 8-track machines, thanks to this morning's mail delivery and a new interview with engineer Jay Messina.

Jay Messina says one of his first studio jobs was working at the studio of Don Elliott (most everyone has heard his commercial work at some point), but he didn't specify if it was the New York City location or Elliott's studio in Weston, Connecticut. Messina remembers that it was the same 1" 8-track machine that had belonged to Les Paul in the 50's.

This is the machine I had written about on page one in response to a question about Atlantic and Motown having 8 track machines earlier than thought.

This Ampex machine which Messina worked on at Don Elliot's would have been that very first Ampex 1" 8-track to be commercially available, and as on page one, Tom Dowd working at Atlantic ordered and installed the second machine from Ampex in 1957 and had it working Atlantic sessions in NYC by 1958. Now we know what happened to Les Paul's Ampex 1" 8-track machine, that first one in the line: It went to Don Elliott.

One interesting quote from Jay Messina: "There were only five 8-track machines in the world then (mid 60's)"

Let's add them up and see if the numbers work:
1. Les Paul buying Ampex #1, which goes to Don Elliott
2. Ampex #2 which went to Tom Dowd at Atlantic
3. Motown's 8-track constructed in-house
4. Columbia/CBS in Los Angeles, constructed in-house
5. Armin Steiner at Sound Studios, constructed in-house

Was that all there was? By the mid-60's as Messina dates his comments, let's take 1965 as a median date: We have documented proof that numbers 1-4 were actively running sessions on those machines by 1965. Armin Steiner's dates are still in question for me, yet he does state he had the "first" in LA in that Mix Magazine interview.

1966 into 1967 seems to have been when the floodgates opened for more studios to invest in 8-tracks, whether for financial reasons, greater availability, or greater demand from their clients.

But Jay Messina saying there were only five such machines in the world in, his term "mid 60's"...does the timeline sound correct?

I'd take it with a grain of salt, but it's interesting ... just not sure it's true.

"Mid-'60s" is too vague a term, because it covers roughly '64-'67. Remember, we had 16-track by late '67 (Lovin' Spoonful's 'Everything Playing' was probably the first major 16-track release).

By 1965, it'd be hard to say what was "in existance" ... Ampex were in a lull at the time as they were moving facilities ... that's how Scully jumped in the game.

Scully were able to break into the studio tape machine business by making one of the first solid-state electronics modules, additionally they did them much smaller than Ampex had previously. The 280 was a slim design compared to Ampex's most recent model, the 350. Ampex didn't introduce the 440 (slim design modules like the Scully) until 1967.

Anyway, *I THINK* Scully were already experimenting with 8-tracks by 1965. Bob Ohlsson (Motown) says that Motown had the first Scully 8-track, but he doesn't cite the year. According to the best sources I know of, Scully began formally selling (and aggressively marketing) 1" 8-tracks in June 1966. This is likely around the same time 3M was entering the market.

There were also so many unknown (and possibly not formally documented) custom-jobs in studios, I'd say 5 is not a correct number. There was a studio in New York called Studio 76 that had a custom 10-track as early as 1966 (possibly earlier), made with Ampex parts that used video tape to record on.

So there were defintely a lot more than 5 by mid-1966.

There's an interview with Steiner where he dates 'his' 8-track at spring 1967, thus not the first by some three years. Certainly he didn't have one in 1966.

It's good to see more information on what seemed to be a vague or broad answer in that interview. I literally had just received it in the mail, was reading through, and that bit of the interview lined up with this thread. The numbers "5" and "mid 60's" did seem vague, especially since the mid 60's was when the market for 8 track tape machines was just starting to explode, and as mentioned so many custom models were made at individual studios, it would be tough to tally up any kind of a total for, say, 1965 of how many were out there.

Armin Steiner's interview(s) were kind of vague too, so it's good to find a date elsewhere of Spring '67. I think that time may have been the tipping point for many of the studios to invest in an 8 track of some kind to keep up with the market demands.

Now to veer off course just a bit, I had to mention Les Paul and had a question or two.

The Messina interview states he was working on Les Paul's Ampex 1" 8-track machine when he worked at Don Elliott's studio, which was known on the East Coast as much as, say, Gold Star and the rest would be known in Hollywood in certain markets.

But there is a series of interviews conducted by Howard Sanner about the history of Ampex with Ross Snyder, who was in the special products division when Les' 8-track was designed and built.

First question: I love Les Paul and his work, and have for some time. But Ross Snyder says in the interviews that the design for Sel Sync and the way they were able to design the heads in order to make it possible on that first machine were his concept which he dreamed up thinking of Les Paul's records and how to make them easier and in higher fidelity so he wouldn't lose the sound quality bouncing and dubbing down every time Les needed more tracks. In the interviews he mentions several times how Les seemed to be taking and being given credit for inventing certain things which Snyder or others at Ampex actually did...and to further confuse it, the Mix magazine article on the history of Sel Sync presents both sides, while still crediting Les...seeming to contradict Snyder in the audio interviews.

This is the first 1" 8-track machine, actually ordered in concept by Les Paul and eventually delivered to him at the price of $10,000 (1957 dollars, equal to the cost of 4 higher-end American cars and in some areas nice houses at that time...), and even with that there appears to be a conflict between two of the key figures behind that machine. Is there a general perception among those historians following this area that one of the two men is stretching the truth?

Question 2: We know Ampex shipped the machine to Les, we know it had some issues and Les shipped it back, we know Ampex fixed them and shipped it back again to Les who finally installed it at his East coast studio. Some histories suggest the machine remained there well into the modern decades, and Les is pictured with that first Ampex machine "The Octopus" in several well-known photos of him later in life in his shop. The machine is in some circles a part of his celebrity as an innovator in pop music.

Yet Jim Messina specifically states he was working on that same machine at Don Elliott's in the 60's. So there is a conflict in the stories.

Could it be a case as simple as Les Paul having rented that machine to Don Elliott? Or did Elliott actually buy it from Les, then sell it back to him? Whatever the case, in the histories I've seen, Don Elliott is only mentioned a few times, and other histories suggest as soon as Ampex shipped it back to Les in the 50's, it never left his studio.

I'm confused, especially on question one which I knew existed but always took the word that Les Paul was the inventor because it has been repeated so often.

yeh, i don't know man. my guess is Jim Messina is wrong.

but in any case, I don't know much about the Les Paul era or scene ... my focus is trying to figure out the L.A./mid-'60s/Beach Boys puzzle! I'm just afraid of veering too far off-topic ...

I'd really love to confirm:

1. Where, when, and by whom 'Summer Days' (probably Western/Columbia), 'Pet Sounds' (ditto), 'Smiley Smile' (Heider?) and 'Wild Honey' (Heider) were mixed. Specifically, I'm wondering if the tracks were mixed as they were recorded, or in one mix session (likely a combination).

2. Why and how the Scully 8-track ended up at Western in late '66-early '67.

Smiley Smile - the obvious tracks excepted - was assembled and mixed at one session, as detailed by Lockert in the Byron Preiss book. Pretty sure it was at Wally Heiders.

Pet Sounds would have very likely been a two-step mix: tracks cut at Western mixed to mono there (technically, a reduction mix) then transferred to the Columbia 8-track for the vocals, which were mixed there.

Do we have the documentation for this?  Because what I think Donny is hinting at is that maybe none of the 8-tracks WERE actually mixed at CBS, if Western was auditioning 8-tracks at the time?

I know it was veering off topic, but as this seemed to be a catch-all for some of the earliest working 8-track machines in the business, it was worth a shot.

For the record, Messina's dates could be in question but his accounts of working on Les' specific 1" 8-track at Don Elliott's have been backed up elsewhere, with other accounts I've read placing that "Octopus" machine with Don Elliott at least for one period of time around the 60's. The specifics are what drags it all down a bit, because there are conflicts and contradictions to be found everywhere.

It speaks to Fishmonk's idea for some kind of book on these topics: My thought on this proposal is that if the facts can't be lined up and proven enough to "solve" the facts and figures behind that first machine, which I'd say would easily be the single most famous and historic tape machine in history, except maybe some at Abbey Road for Beatles fans, how can a definitive history be written? You'd need to spend many pages presenting all sides, and then expect the readers to sort through what they believe versus what they question? Or whose word they take versus whose memory is in question?

It all makes the head spin too much, and the Les Paul history itself confused the hell out of me because the accepted wisdom has been challenged and the conventional wisdom behind the story has been disputed in a very logical way by someone else who was directly involved. I'm of the old fashioned view that in order to record a factual history of something like the history of recorded sound, you need to confirm those facts in an airtight way before putting it in print. Otherwise someone will plant the seeds of distrust in the entire project if something you claim is a fact is proven not to be, and the other 95% of the facts contained in the same publication will be called into question, unnecessarily.

Back to the topic!  :)

That is one of the key issues that we'd need to move forward: There needs to be a date established when Western was auditioning 8 track machines. There is too much information now to suggest either option (CBS or Western) or both is a possibility.

Now to throw this into the mix: Someone recently posted on this board some thoughts from Mark Linett, I believe, who suggested that a reason for Pet Sounds having a bit of a muddier sound was that the way they were trying to mix it on the UA 610 based modular boards was actually more than the equipment could handle, and it was doing something beyond what those specific units in the setup at Western was designed to do. So the sound quality suffered a bit.

Was I dreaming that? Please confirm!

But above all, that bit of info would lean the assumptions more to the album being mixed at Western, since CBS wasn't using boards based on Putnam's 610 units. Yet the educated guess would say Western only had 4-track capability at the time Pet Sounds was mixed.

Yeah, Mark supposed that the line-level pad down on the 610 inputs muddied the sound.

Yes! So therefore, could we take a preliminary leap of faith and assume that would affect mixes that would have to have been done at Western since CBS did not have Putnam's 610's in 1966? And it would suggest that the album would have that issue affect all the mixes across the board because it was all sent through the same equipment. If mixes were done at Columbia and Western, wouldn't there be a noticeable difference in frequencies heard if a specific issue is attributed to Western's mixing equipment that wouldn't be there on those mixed at Columbia?

Not quite, but close ...

I don't think Western had 8-track when Pet Sounds was mixed. But I think we can find out when BW started using the 8-track at Western by getting more info on the SUMMER DAYS and PET SOUNDS mixes.

I know you guys think I'm crazy with the 'step fade' thing, but this really provides some serious clues. I'm still trying to work it out getting a good source of the flat mix tapes.

SUMMER DAYS flat transfers (if anyone knows of any pressings that have the fades 'unhelped') would help clear up the mystery. If I can confirm that the 8-track songs from SUMMER DAYS are the only ones with step-fades, then we can come to the logical conclusion that the Columbia board had step fades, and any track w/ step fades was mixed there. Then, if we hear any original mixes from 8-track masters WITHOUT step fades (that were not 'helped' by a later engineer) from '66-'67, we can pretty much assume that these were MIXED AT WESTERN ON 8-TRACK (perhaps there are none of these, I don't know yet).

Based on what I've heard so far, this is actually where I think the PET SOUNDS tracks were mixed:

(in terms of when, not sure, but we can theorize. Obviously, "Caroline, No" and "Sloop" were mixed before the rest of the album)

1 - WIBN - Columbia
2 - YSBIM - Western
3 - That's Not Me - Western
4 - Don't Talk - Columbia
5 - IWFTD - Columbia
6 - LGAFA - Columbia
7 - Sloop - Western
8 - God - Columbia
9 - IKTAA - Columbia
10 - Here Today - Columbia
11 - IJWMFTT - Columbia
12 - Pet Sounds - Western
13 - Caroline No - Western

If my info above is true (it may not be; I'm not 100% on it yet), then some of the 4-track songs were mixed at Columbia as well.

If this is correct, "Caroline, No" and "Sloop John B" would have of course been mixed earliest. (maybe "Pet Sounds" too).

Then, perhaps "WIBN" and "God Only Knows" maybe mixed separately at Columbia for the single.

I would suggest maybe "You Still Believe in Me", "That's Not Me" and "Pet Sounds" were mixed earlier than the rest, maybe at the same session as the recording.

Then the rest mixed at Columbia in one session. Note these are also the tracks which have sloppier mixes than the rest (background noise, distortion, uneven vocal levels).

well ...

This raises another question I've asked before (doesn't seem there is an answer).

check it out:

so, for a back track cust at Western, then vocals added at Columbia ... was the back-track 'mixed' to a mono tape (or one track on a 4-track), then the tape taken to Columbia, and transferred to 8-track? Or was the 4-track master taken to Columbia, where it was pre-mixed from 4-track to one track on the 8-track?

I can see the benefits and disadvantages of either method. The first method would allow BW & Chuck to mix it at Western, locking in the exact balance they want. The other method would leave it to Columbia engineers, but would have slightly better sound quality (saving a generation of tape).

I've always thought it was strange that the 4th track was generally reserved for what's usually termed 'reference mix'.  I always thought that maybe that was the actual final mix of the back track, which was then transferred to the 8-track.

I not sure we can get much from that. There are too many variables in terms of what could make the sound 'muddy'. For instance, 'Here Today' has the most noise and distortion of any of the tracks. probably just sloppy engineering.

Per the known Smile sessions, it had to be 1/5/67 or later as there were no Western sessions between the Fire recordings and that date (er... except for 12/19/66). Of course, the band could be wearing the fire hats after the "GV" promo shoot but before "Fire" (anyone care to do an A/B between the two film clips to see if they are the same: my impression is, they're not). The studio newsletter only mentions auditioning 8-tracks in the 4/67 edition, so we can tentatively infer that said footage is indeed post-"Cow" and thus early 1967 (or maybe 12/19/66). That's my best shot.

My bad. Of course, I meant that the instrumental 4-tracks were mixed to mono at Western then copied to the Columbia 8-track. Or, maybe, they did the reduction mix on a Columbia 4-track direct to the 8-track, thus saving a generation.

Or maybe the mix fairies did it at midnight when no-one was looking. I have no idea.

Think I need to have a word with someone who might know. And currently has time on his hands.

It is just hideous engineering, isn't it?  Maybe the best evidence that Chuck was not involved in it?  I mean, there's stuff from other tracking sessions bleeding through, noise, really bad.

Right, but I think you're bypassing the main point I tried to raise, which is people accustomed to hearing these intricacies critically listening to the album track-by-track would be able to notice a difference if a certain issue at Western due to equipment shortcomings or quirks caused a muddiness (according to Linett), so in return they'd also be able to hear that such issues were not present on tracks mixed at other studios. Apart from the fading details, is there an audible difference between tracks assumed to have been mixed at Columbia versus those we assume were at Western?

Just to even it out, do we agree Pet Sounds has a cohesive, overall sound quality in the mixes where we'd agree with the guy who works almost every official Pet Sounds project when he says a muddiness is there? Then that same engineer attributes that to a situation specific to Bill Putnam's studios. That would suggest that he (or we) can assume everything was run through those modules at Western to cause the muddiness across the whole album, and not just certain tracks.

YES !

PS, I meant, "I don't think Western had 8-track when Pet Sounds was mixed." ...

I want to be clear and ask if you mean an A/B comparison between the actual firehats or something else in the videos.  ;D

I can speak to the firehats at least between the silent film at Western and the shots at the Gold Star session - these are indeed the same toy hats. The reference may be in several articles, but didn't Steve Korthof or someone else around Brian have a stack of those in the car or something?

This is the best comparison I can offer showing a scene from the GV promo, a scene from the Western film, and a photo from Gold Star Fire session:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/cokes1.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brianfilm1.jpg)
(http://psychobabble100.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/bw_hat.jpg)


I'd say they appear to be the exact same toy hat model pictured in all three events.

Many thanks for that... so the faux-"Fire" session at Western replete with Scully 8-track that really shouldn't be there could be mid-October.

Times like this when I start to hate The Beach Boys.  :ahh

I don't think I can hear any discernable difference track-by-track, except to say that the all-Western tracks sound a little bit better (slightly 'warmer'?) overall. I would say this is down more to technique than equipment. But in any case, most boards in those days were similar. There is also an argument that can be made that the electronics on Columbia's 8-track are inferior to the ones typically used in studios at the time. The electronics they used were taken from the Ampex PR-10 (same as a 354 w/ different transport), which was designed for portability. These machines crammed a bunch of stuff (including tubes) in a really small space ... a rat's nest in there & really difficult to service.

... too many variables there in my opinion.

and for the record, I like the sound of the line stage going back through the mike preamp. my mixer has this 'flaw' as well. These days, the gear geeks would call it 'warmth' ... it hits the transformer twice basically. I find it creates extra depth.

you know, on Ampex 440 tape machines, some people consider the headphone output to be 'better' than the actual line out, because the line out has an extra transformer. I've transferred mixes through both, and i've found the line out has a greater depth (but you could call it  murky') but also a more 'clean' sound ... I think this comes down to preference more than an actual flaw.

Remember it was Mark Linett's suggestion that the 610 and related Putnam gear they mixed with at Western may have caused the issues-flaws-muddiness on Pet Sounds' mixes. Unfortunately I don't have the actual article or interview with his exact words but I think reposting that here if possible would be very helpful!

I think the word "warmth" may hold the gold medal as the most overused/misapplied word in marketing gear, from recording to processors to pedals to amplifiers. "This new overdrive pedal from xxxxxxx has an actual 12AX7 tube, you can see it glow! Plug in and get that instant warm tube tone..." etc.  ;D But then again, I think we do know it when we hear it in our own way.

I do agree, too many variables.

I have a feeling that there are perhaps one or two photos hidden somewhere that could fill in a few of the missing pieces, either hidden or just not widely published as some of the other Webster-Dailey studio photos.

There are a few wider shots of Brian doing Fire at Gold Star 11/66, reproduced very small in LLVS and in B&W, that may add some clues. If anyone has them in better resolution/color, please consider making them available for the sake of solving this! I think those shots of Brian in Gold Star show what appear to be 2 Scully tape machines at that session, but they look like 4 tracks from a distance...you can't tell from the tiny size of the reproductions in LLVS.

I have the MIX magazine (1996) when he was quoted. sounded like an off-handed remark. I can dig it out when I'm home later. I think everyone just kind of assumed it was mixed at Western without giving it too much thought.

I definitely assumed it was all mixed at Western, too! Not just that but from numerous other articles with and without Mark Linett which mentioned Brian mixing "with Chuck", or descriptions of mixing at Western in general, or of Chuck Britz describing mixing Pet Sounds tracks (unless my memory is playing tricks on me). Definitely a case of assumptions not necessarily being realities.

"Mark Linett explains why:  "One of the failures I've always felt about that console in particular was that it recorded great, but the line inputs were padded down and went back to the mic inputs, creating a real distortion problem.  This problem is typical of a lot of consoles from the '60s.  The 3-track, 2-track, and live-to-mono stuff always sounded fantastic, but when they started mixing it through the board, they definitely lost a lot of the fidelity." "

Italics added by Aeijtzsche

too much 'warmth' = 'murky'. but i'm into that sound personally.

yeh, and all the instrumental tracks were bounced down to another machine anyway, so you're going through several generations of this.

it is, but it's so charming. i love the emotional impact of those original mixes. the distortion increases as Mike Love's passion increases.