The Stephen Desper Thread

[DonnyL]

thanks, that's the info i needed

[Big Bri]

Hi Stephen,
   Glad to see you back on here again.I was wondering if you're going to post a link on here when you're
finished with the up-dated book? I missed out on the first printing and would very much like to purchase
you're book when it's ready.

Thanks Steve,

Brian

[DonnyL]

I too am ready to purchase the new book as soon as you're taking pre-orders

Donny

[37!ws]

I'm not sure if it's still there, but years ago there was a website advertising the Spatializer, and there was a sound file to demonstrate "before" and "after" the Spatializer effects. The sound file consisted of a brief snippet of an alternate, a capella (with full harmony) version of "The Warmth Of The Sun." It wasn't a remake; Brian's voice rang out clear as a bell...

Anybody (esp. Mr. Desper?) know the details behind this outtake?? (and perhaps how it eluded the, uhh....b00tleggers!)

[Stephen W. Desper]

I too am ready to purchase the new book as soon as you're taking pre-orders

Donny

The Smiley Smile Message Board will be the first place I post when the book is finished.
No pre-paid orders.  When it's published, you can order.

Thanks for your support.      ~swd

[king of anglia]

Mr. Desper Sir,
I've a question about recording if you've got the time answer:

Got a band; one guitar, one bass, one drums, one lead vocal, two backing vocals.

What would be the best way to record this band (loud 70s style rock) with this quite limited setup:

Smallish rehearsal room
16 Channel Mixer
Lots of SM58s
A couple of omnidirectional mics
8 track recording on a laptop

Thanks,
Steve

[Stephen W. Desper]

I'm not sure if it's still there, but years ago there was a website advertising the Spatializer, and there was a sound file to demonstrate "before" and "after" the Spatializer effects. The sound file consisted of a brief snippet of an alternate, a capella (with full harmony) version of "The Warmth Of The Sun." It wasn't a remake; Brian's voice rang out clear as a bell...

Anybody (esp. Mr. Desper?) know the details behind this outtake?? (and perhaps how it eluded the, uhh....b00tleggers!)

COMMENT TO 37!ws:
If I remember correctly, the snippit was taken from an Internet song sample of a CD offering (like Amazon), OR it could have been from a CD. The "without" sample was a direct copy and the "with" sample was made by passing the signal through an analog Spatializer(R).  The company was granted permission to use the sample as a courtesy to me.   ~swd   

[Stephen W. Desper]

Mr. Desper Sir,
I've a question about recording if you've got the time answer:

Got a band; one guitar, one bass, one drums, one lead vocal, two backing vocals.

What would be the best way to record this band (loud 70s style rock) with this quite limited setup:

Smallish rehearsal room
16 Channel Mixer
Lots of SM58s
A couple of omnidirectional mics
8 track recording on a laptop

Thanks,
Steve

COMMENT TO KING OF ANGLIA LINK:

I'd be tempted to record bass and drums first, to get the best clear sound in your small room as you can. Then add, using close mics, all the other elements -- one at a time or in groups. You might consider doubling the "one" guitar when playing the rhythm guitar part and maybe even doubling the BGs. 

To insure dynamics of drums miked up close, be certain to keep your recording levels low. The indicators do not show the extreme signal a drum produces and will compress the sound unless you keep the levels well below zero.

If the band cannot perform without all the players playing at the same time ... look back in my postings for how to approach this problem.  But no matter how you mic everything, the small room sound will dominate, so best to do as suggested in first paragraph.

~swd

[NightHider]

Hi Stephen -

Wondering if there was any headway being made in your lobby to have the two Flame albums released? 

Sure hope so...

[Custom Machine]

Stephen –

I have a question concerning promo copy mixes that you did for The Beach Boys. 

A number of years ago I picked up a 45 RPM promotional copy of Add Some Music to Your Day b/w Susie Cincinnati and was quite surprised to find that both songs were mixed significantly differently than they were on the stock 45 rpm single, and in the case of Add Some Music, on the Sunflower album.

The stock copy 45 rpm single and album versions were in stereo, whereas the promo 45 was in mono, but a mono fold down of the stereo versions still sounds nothing like the promo versions.  For Add Some Music, the most prominent differences are that the promo version has significantly less bass, significantly boosted midrange emphasizing the vocals, and the guitar is mixed significantly louder.  Susie Cincinnati’s promo version also has significantly less bass, somewhat boosted midrange, and contains engine sound fx not found on the original 1970 45 rpm stock copy. 

As far as listening experience is concerned, the promo copies sound way too bass shy and midrange boosted to me, and I find the stock copies much more enjoyable to listen to.

So, my question is, were the promo mixes done differently for AM radio?  AM was definitely the more dominant popular and rock music format at the time, but since AM tends to sound tinny with accentuated midrange anyway, it doesn’t seem that there would be any advantage to boosting the mids on the promo copies.

Did you mix other Beach Boys promo singles differently than the stock copies?  I don’t have many promo copies, especially of the Beach Boys, but this is the only one I’ve come across where the promo is significantly different than the stock copy. 

Not too long after this Feb 1970 release, with the rise in the popularity of FM radio, I recall that most promo 45s contained just one song, in mono on one side, and stereo the other; for example that was the case with Cool Cool Water.   And, interestingly, in the summer of 1973, the single mono mix of Susie Cincinnati was released on the Warner Brothers loss leader Appetizers, with the same mix found on the promo single, but without the rolled off bass and somewhat boosted midrange.

Have any members of this board noticed different mixes, compared to the stock 45 rpm single, on other Beach Boys promo 45s?

Thanks for any info you can provide, Stephen.  I’m really looking forward to your forthcoming book.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Stephen –

I have a question concerning promo copy mixes that you did for The Beach Boys. 

A number of years ago I picked up a 45 RPM promotional copy of Add Some Music to Your Day b/w Susie Cincinnati and was quite surprised to find that both songs were mixed significantly differently than they were on the stock 45 rpm single, and in the case of Add Some Music, on the Sunflower album.

The stock copy 45 rpm single and album versions were in stereo, whereas the promo 45 was in mono, but a mono fold down of the stereo versions still sounds nothing like the promo versions.  For Add Some Music, the most prominent differences are that the promo version has significantly less bass, significantly boosted midrange emphasizing the vocals, and the guitar is mixed significantly louder.  Susie Cincinnati’s promo version also has significantly less bass, somewhat boosted midrange, and contains engine sound fx not found on the original 1970 45 rpm stock copy. 

As far as listening experience is concerned, the promo copies sound way too bass shy and midrange boosted to me, and I find the stock copies much more enjoyable to listen to.

So, my question is, were the promo mixes done differently for AM radio?  AM was definitely the more dominant popular and rock music format at the time, but since AM tends to sound tinny with accentuated midrange anyway, it doesn’t seem that there would be any advantage to boosting the mids on the promo copies.

Did you mix other Beach Boys promo singles differently than the stock copies?  I don’t have many promo copies, especially of the Beach Boys, but this is the only one I’ve come across where the promo is significantly different than the stock copy. 

Not too long after this Feb 1970 release, with the rise in the popularity of FM radio, I recall that most promo 45s contained just one song, in mono on one side, and stereo the other; for example that was the case with Cool Cool Water.   And, interestingly, in the summer of 1973, the single mono mix of Susie Cincinnati was released on the Warner Brothers loss leader Appetizers, with the same mix found on the promo single, but without the rolled off bass and somewhat boosted midrange.

Have any members of this board noticed different mixes, compared to the stock 45 rpm single, on other Beach Boys promo 45s?

Thanks for any info you can provide, Stephen.  I’m really looking forward to your forthcoming book.

COMMENT TO CUSTOM MACHINE:  I can't make any specific comments about mixes as I simply cannot remember the details. As a general observation I would say that promotional copies or copies included in pre-release press kits may have been made from early mixes. They could also not be folddown (stereo to mono) but rather seperate mono mixes.  Mixes for AM radio that I had anything to do with would, in fact, have less bass in them so as not to excite the AM compressor.  This done to avoid the "pumping" of the vocals by the bass line.  It is also quite possible that promotional copies were assembled by in-house Capital or Warner engineers who boosted the vocal frequencies to feature the group over and above the band. I don't remember making seperate mixes for promotional use, so whatever copies you collected may have been created out of my mixes and never intended for public consumption. Once the master mix copy is delivered to the record label it is very hard to maintain any quality control. It was a constant battle for me. The record company can really do what thay damn well please once they have the master tapes.  As to 45's with the same song on both sides, but one in mono and one in stereo, this was at a time when the transition was being made from mono to stereo.  45 rpm record players were still around and could not track stereo, whereas other players could play 33, 45, and 78 rpm records in stereo. Therefore, some releases were made to accommodate all the formates a 45 disc might encounter.   ~swd

[Stephen W. Desper]

Hi Stephen -

Wondering if there was any headway being made in your lobby to have the two Flame albums released? 

Sure hope so...

COMMENT TO NIGHTHIDER:  I am sorry to report that we are again at another impasse with BRI management.  Your emails to BRI asking for this release to be forthcomming may be enough to get things moving again. ~swd

[Mahalo]

Yo Stephen...You Rule! Hope all is well, and much Thanx....from the Hudson Valley in New York......keep rockin'.........

[DonnyL]

Mr Desper,

i have read through all of your posts (including the archives) and found it to be the most useful and educational reading that I have encountered regarding recording tecniques.

i do have a question that i don't believe has been addressed yet.  when you bounced or "ping-ponged" tracks, was it typically done to another machine or internally within the same machine?  was there any difference in this process whether you were working with 8 or 16 track machines?

i know that on many machines of this era, the sync head response was not as good as the repro head response.  i am wondering if this more limited fidelity may have contributed in part to the sonic character of the original recordings.  i was also thinking that you may have even built heads that could overcome

these potential issues. i have noticed in my own experience that making an internal bounce can actually help the individual tracks "gel" together a little bit more, even though there is a slight decrease in clarity and presence.

i am working on a recording and am trying to get the best sound possible using a limited number of tracks with extensive overdubs.  i typically bounce internally but am considering going to another machine instead, which somewhat limits flexibility during tracking (as i would need to make one larger mix instead of a variety of smaller submixes).

I also have another question: were you involved at all in editing the tapes for the WILD HONEY lp?  I notice the tape splices and was wondering what the process was for putting these edits together.  It sounds like they made a mix and then copied it to a different tape few times for certain sections.

thanks in advance for any insight,

donny

[armona]

Hi Stephen,
Sorry if you've answered this before, but who sang the "A Children's Song" lyric at the end of Surf's Up in 1971? I've always assumed it was Brian. Badman's book mentions he arranged the final part, but doesn't say whether he actually sang that tag.

Thanks!

[John]

It's Al.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Mr Desper,

When you bounced or "ping-ponged" tracks, was it typically done to another machine or internally within the same machine?

COMMENT:  I believe the term "to ping-pong a track" refers to the synchronistic combining of several tracks to one track within the same machine. This is done by using the recording head-stack as both a playback and record head.  Since the machine is designed with ping-ponging in mind, the electronics have separate EQ adjustments for playback from the reproduce head and playback from the record head.  These adjustments can render the frequency response curves to be the same for both heads. Yes, there may be a slight boost when using the recording head as playback head, but it is only a dB or less.  The difference in sound is hardly noticeable.  In addition, the tracks that you are combining in the ping-pong will be routed through the mixer with EQ being applied at the time of combining, so spectral modification is applied via the mixing board anyway.  The real question for me was, do I record using Dolby Noise Reduction on the multi-track or not.  This can become a real headache because all the tracks must be decoded to be combined and then re-encoded for the bounce.  Here is where the real degradation of the sound can occur since they must again be decoded for mixdown.   After a few tries, I found I got the best overall sound by recording the multi-track at 30 IPS without Noise Reduction, including all ping-pongs. Then I used Dolby Type A for the Master Tape at 15 IPS.  At 30 IPS the playback head EQ bump can reduce a rich bass sound to less then you expect at 15IPS, but the advantage is another 3 dB reduction in tape noise.  So I opted for less noise in the multi-track, including ping-pongs, and correcting the bass sound during mixdown -- mixdown being done with Dolby at 15IPS.  This kept the noise down for the Master Tape without changing the bass sound of the Master Tape.   

Was there any difference in this process whether you were working with 8 or 16 track machines?

COMMENT:  Not really, although the tape hiss was higher in the 16 or 24 track machine.

i know that on many machines of this era, the sync head response was not as good as the repro head response.  i am wondering if this more limited fidelity may have contributed in part to the sonic character of the original recordings. 

COMMENT:  Every element along the chain effects the fidelity, but as I said above, these professional machines are designed to overcome signal losses during ping-pongs.  The overall sonic character is really set in Mixdown and further in the Mastering of the final product.

i was also thinking that you may have even built heads that could overcome these potential issues. i have noticed in my own experience that making an internal bounce can actually help the individual tracks "gel" together a little bit more, even though there is a slight decrease in clarity and presence.

COMMENT:  A slight decrease in clarity can be overcome with a little high end boost and presence loss with mid-boost. I would think the "gel" you hear is just the nature of combining or mixing together.    
 
i am working on a recording and am trying to get the best sound possible using a limited number of tracks with extensive overdubs.  i typically bounce internally but am considering going to another machine instead, which somewhat limits flexibility during tracking (as i would need to make one larger mix instead of a variety of smaller submixes). 

COMMENT:  Not all tracks will need to be ping-ponged.  Usually it is vocals and a few instruments that need combining.  Recording from one machine to another may give a slightly lower noise factor for the tracks that are (in effect) not ping-ponged, but its negated by the noise which comes from re-recording all the other tracks.  When going from machine to machine you need to move all the tracks, and that is where the bass and especially the drums begin to loose their punch.  Combining only a few tracks within the same machine preserves the original drum and bass track sounds. So, ping-ponging within the same machine rather than copying from one machine to another actually makes for a better final sound.

Additional ping-ponging guidelines are:  (1) don't ping from adjacent pong tracks. That is, don't playback from tracks 1, 2 , and 3 to track 4.  The playback from track 3 will interfear with the recording on track 4. You need to skip at least one track. (2) Don't lead vocals on outside tracks.  The physical contact of the outside tracks (1 and 16) can cause the lead vocal to sound wavy if there is any physical damage to the edge of the multi-track tape itself. (3)  Usually the bass or kick drum are good candidates for recording on outside tracks (1 and 16).  Any physical damage or slight loss of tracking or contact with the heads at the edges of the 2" wide multi-track tape will not be heard. These are practical considerations.     

I also have another question: were you involved at all in editing the tapes for the WILD HONEY lp?  I notice the tape splices and was wondering what the process was for putting these edits together.  It sounds like they made a mix and then copied it to a different tape few times for certain sections.

COMMENT:  Yes on both the multi-track and master tapes to editing.  I used a tape block for edits.  Engineers at Capital Records used scissors and the eye as a guide for cutting.  Some edits were done at mixdowns at Capital where union rules require the union engineers to make the splices.  It was not beneath the Beach Boys to get one good chorus, copy it several times and then splice the copies into the master, in the interest of saving time. Thus one complete song could have copied sections.  

Good Listening,  ~Stephen W. Desper

[Stephen W. Desper]

Hi Stephen,
Sorry if you've answered this before, but who sang the "A Children's Song" lyric at the end of Surf's Up in 1971? I've always assumed it was Brian. Badman's book mentions he arranged the final part, but doesn't say whether he actually sang that tag.

Thanks!

COMMENT:  Well, if you had read my book, Recording The Beach Boys, you would find on page 44 a detailed recollection of that part of the sessions for Surfs Up and the story of how BRIAN added the Children's Song line to the end of the song.  ~swd

[Stephen W. Desper]

It's Al.

COMMENT:  Nope!  Alan was out of town the day that line was added.  You error only underscores why the Beach Boy singing group sounded so good when they sang together.  All the voices have characteristics which make it hard to distinguish one voice from another in many cases -- therefore the blend they got was without equal. ~swd

[DonnyL]

“ping-ponging within the same machine rather than copying from one machine to another actually makes for a better final sound.”
 
Thank you for your insight and tips … you’ve confirmed what I already suspected, that internal bouncing is probably the best option, all things considered.  since that’s how you got the greatest recorded sounds I know of, then that method sounds good to me, and I will continue to work in this manner.
 
I’ve learned the hard way to not combine adjacent tracks!  I would get a very strange, high-pitched squealing sound if the levels were just a little bit too loud and wondered what was going on.  After some trial and error, I realized that bouncing a track to the “track next door” causes this problem.
 
I will take your advice about bass and kick drum on the outside tracks … I usually place “less important” tracks here, like a subtle overdub part or a percussion track.  It does make more sense to put the “bassier” sounds there though, because a dropout or irregularity would be less noticeable.

[MBE]

Brian and Al really could sound like each other from about 66-74. Thanks again Stephen.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Steve, it's really nice to read your thoughts on recording again.  I've learned so much from you over the years, from your book and online.  I continue to record, I'm trying to finish up an album which I'd love to send to you when I'm done, if that ever happens.

It turns out that I'm figuring out some ping-pong kind of stuff, I've moved from computer/DAW recording to a 24-track digital machine.  I'm glad to get out from behind a computer screen.

But my "console" only really has 14 inputs.  So I've had to figure out how to get my final mixdown from 14 tracks instead of 24.  I've got it worked out pretty well.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Actually, Steve. if you're up to it, I have one of my long, detailed questions I've been thinking about for a while.

I'd like some clarifications on the mixing process at Brian's house.

Now, you said in your book and also on here that much of the "stereo magic" in the recordings happened a mixdown.  And the tracksheets Alan has provided confirm that, in most cases, you only recorded maybe 30-40% of the instrumentation on any given song in true stereo, usually drums, piano, etc.

So, given you're ready to do a mix from the 16-track, you would set up all kinds of acoustic effects.

Here's important question #1:  Since you just had the one reverb chamber, I assume that you generally recorded the instruments dry, and then sent what you wanted reverberated to the chamber at mixdown, and that the chamber sent a stereo return back into the board?

I'm guessing that you would print the vocals with reverb at the time of recording vocals, right?

As for compression or limiting, is it also fair to guess that you did more of that at recording time, than at the mix?  I remember you mentioning somewhere that you had a few compressors at the time.

So, if you were limited in backing vocal tracks, you would limit Mike's bass vocal at the time, and print it to tape in with the rest of the backing vocals that went to maybe just one track?  And put the reverb on there, printed it, also?

Obviously each mix situation is different, but I was fascinated when you once said that often all 40-inputs of the 4 10-channel consoles would be used.  So I wonder what all you had going on.

I guess 16 would be used to take in the tape inputs, but that leaves 24 more inputs.  Stereo reverb return...comb filters...reamping to capture guitars in stereo.  Maybe a split signal on the bass to get some width...

Big question #2 is about something more specific:

All the tracksheets I've seen (And I've seen just about all the sunflower ones) indicate that you almost always gave drums two tracks.  Drums L and Drums R is how they're usually labeled.  Alan told me he could find no documentation of you ever doing a condensing bounce of more multi-track drums down to stereo.  In other words, you typically did a live mix of the drums to stereo.

From what I've seen in pictures, and in exchanging with some people (including you of course), and listening, it seems to me like your "typical" (inasmuch as there is such thing) set up was three mics, you've said an RCA 44 on kick and two 67s top in figure-8.

So, coming the the thrust of the question, when in "Disney Girls", for which we don't seem to have a tracksheet, you send the snare into the tape slap, was that a special set-up for that song involving presetting a snare mic and printing the effect on the stereo drum track?

Or were you able to use three tracks on that song, and process the snare at mixdown?


And on an aside question, from listening very carefully to some sunflower outtakes, I've noticed that on the stereo drum track, rather than put the kick in the center and send the top left and top right to the left and right, it sounds like often you would put a lot more of the kick in the same channel that had the top mic closest to the snare.  In some rough mixes of outtakes I've heard, whoever mixed it seems to have put the "kick and snare" track nearly centered, and then it's almost like the other track is just a floor tom track, panned out.


Whew, again, only answer this if you feel like it.  The fact that I care so much about this stuff should at least remind you how much I like your work!

[c-man]

Amen!

[jh055]

Hi Folks, and Mr. Desper  if you're out there. I'm new to the world of message boards, so sorry if i don't follow the right protocals. Just discovered the existence of Stephen's book, (thats how i ended up here) and as a huge, huge fan of all things BB's particularly 67 through 77, am dying to read it. I am also a musician singer, with decades of home recording experience, so i am doubly interested in Stephens techniques. If i could learn ONE thing about how they recorded the vocals on Sunflower, it would be worth the price of the book.

So my question is, can someone point me to a link to purchase the book? I found and followed a few posted here, but they seem to be dead.

FWIW, my proudest home recording accomplishment is my take on Wind Chimes....Yes, I am a hardcore fan.

Thank you in advance, I look forward to sharing thoughts with all you fellow beautiful music lovers.

JH055