gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
652634 Posts in 26078 Topics by 3717 Members - Latest Member: My1stCRUSHWasCamDiaz December 05, 2019, 09:01:32 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 21 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Mark Linett Thread  (Read 154422 times)
aeijtzsche
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2560



View Profile
« Reply #325 on: March 31, 2007, 09:03:15 PM »

I'm a bass player, and I don't feel like there's anything about bass that requires it being centered in the stereo panorama.  Maybe we've been conditioned to want low frequencies in the middle.

I'm sure Mark will weigh in with his methodologies, but you have to remember that everything up to Friends was recorded with mono, not stereo in mind, and thus was not planned specifically for being able to put all the bass frequencies in the middle.

In the case of Pet Sounds, it would be impractical anyway, because the tracks there were contained to three track, and what shares a track with the basses on a PS track may not jive with the rest of the mix if it is also in the center.

In the case of Let the Wind Blow, I think it's more effective to have the Piano, which is doubling the bass, actually opposite the bass, so they balance in the ears.  If you put both the bass and piano in the center, you don't have much to fill out the rest of the panorama, and if you put the bass in the center and the piano out right or left, then I think it would actually be more unbalanced than any other combo...

Just my personal thoughts...
Logged
Mahalo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159

..Stand back, Speak normally


View Profile WWW
« Reply #326 on: April 01, 2007, 08:04:03 AM »

Hey, I appreciate that aeijtzsche. I never thought of it that way. When I listen to my stereo at home it doesn't bother me, it's only when I listen through my headphones. I listen through the phones many hours a day at work. I even got a full earphone instead of those little ones in order to get a full bass sound in the music.

I am not schooled in the logistics of the tracking, so forgive me for not understanding the ins and outs of those techniques. I suppose that it is an art unto itself when trying to convert mono to the clearest possible stereo, especially with the Boys. I love the way one can hear their voices on LTWB and how the songs seem to breathe a little easier in stereo. I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine that the heavier bass sounds tend to be pushed to the left in those two songs I mentioned. It makes my ear tickle!, while at the same time, I guess if the bass was more centered I would get the feeling I'm in the middle (abstractly speaking) of the musical "panorama"!

Again, thanks aeijtzsche....Lord knows we all love those melodic/hypnotic BB bass lines!!!
Logged

Mahalo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1159

..Stand back, Speak normally


View Profile WWW
« Reply #327 on: April 02, 2007, 02:02:08 PM »

Oh yeah, Mark. Can you do your best to get us an official release of the backing track to "In The Back Of My Mind"Huh
Logged

NimrodsSon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


View Profile
« Reply #328 on: April 13, 2007, 12:27:08 PM »

Hey, Mark. I've got a stupid but practical question for you. Is your last name pronounced li-NET or LI-nit?
Logged
yrplace
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 234


View Profile
« Reply #329 on: April 13, 2007, 12:36:39 PM »

Hey, Mark. I've got a stupid but practical question for you. Is your last name pronounced li-NET or LI-nit?
\

It is prounounced  LIN (like the girls' name-lynne) NET (what you use to catch fish) But spelled LINETT........
Logged
NimrodsSon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


View Profile
« Reply #330 on: April 17, 2007, 10:27:03 AM »

Thanks. I've got another question, this time much more relevant.
|
I'd like to spend $1500 on some plug-ins for my digital home studio. I've been looking into it and I absolutely want to get one of Universal Audio's UAD card packages (probably the UAD-1e Expert Pak for $1000). I'd also like to get a good reverb plug-in. I've been considering Altiverb ($520), which I know you are a proponent of. My only dilemma now is that, looking at the statistics on the Universal Audio website for their UAD plug-ins, it looks like I'll be using all of my available DSP very quickly, especially since I'm recording at 24/96. Therefore, I'm thinking it might be better to get two UAD cards and forget about Altiverb. My question, then, is, have you used Universal Audio's Dreamverb plug-in, and if so, how do you think it compares to Altiverb? I know it's not convolution reverb, but the reviews (mainly what I've seen on the UA website) seem to be pretty glowing.

Also, assuming you even use them, how many UAD cards do you have; and in your experience, on a typical session, how quickly do you use up all of the available DSP? I guess it varies a lot from plug-in to plug-in, but I'm a little concerned about some of the stats I'm seeing. For example, the 1176LN supposedly only gets 8 instance counts per card at just 44.1kHz, the Neve 1081 only gets 3, the Roland Space Echo only gets 2, etc. I'm guessing at 96kHz these would decrease greatly.
Logged
yrplace
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 234


View Profile
« Reply #331 on: April 17, 2007, 04:59:28 PM »

The UAD cards do use up  DSP pretty fast on some of the plugs less on others. They only run in RTAS and won't work in Audio Suite if that matters to you. I have one card in a large HD-5 system running on a Macpro quad computer. The UAD is certainly a great product and a great dela for the price. Altiverb is certainly theway to go for reverb imo.

Mark
Logged
MBE
Guest
« Reply #332 on: April 18, 2007, 05:10:40 PM »

Hello Mark I am curious as to what unreleased Beach Boys you would most like to see come out. I also would like to know what you are happy to see stay in the can.
Logged
P.J.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 152

The least you could do is smile.


View Profile
« Reply #333 on: June 05, 2007, 02:33:12 PM »

Hello Mark I am curious as to what unreleased Beach Boys you would most like to see come out. I also would like to know what you are happy to see stay in the can.
Same question with a few additions. I'd like to see an official version of the early "Big Sur" released. That is one of my all time top 5 Boys records and I cannot believe it hasn't been released. With all these compilation albums (Sounds of Summer, Warmth of the Sun) I would think some of that stuff (if not Smile stuff) would pop up.

We want a Smile box set!!
Logged

"I heard the word -- wonderful thing -- a children's song."
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #334 on: September 30, 2007, 08:01:28 PM »

Mark, is there any chance you can tell us whether you're aware of any plans to record That Lucky Old Sun in the studio? It's apparently been mentioned here and there in interviews, and I thought (if it isn't top secret) perhaps you could give us the scoop.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
chris.metcalfe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 340



View Profile
« Reply #335 on: October 09, 2007, 05:48:28 AM »

My vote would be for a double-CD version of Sunflower, containing all the tracks that were recorded for that album in 1969-70. It would be fabulous, a real rival to the Beatles' white album, but of course hopelessly uncommercial to all but the fans and therefore unlikely. I don't know though... with the right hype...!!
Logged
chris.metcalfe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 340



View Profile
« Reply #336 on: February 14, 2008, 01:55:23 AM »

I feel very uncomfortable that my name has appeared as the last to post on this thread for nearly 6 months! Perhaps I could restart it by asking Mark what the current plans are for recording That Lucky Old Sun?
Logged
Aegir
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4679



View Profile
« Reply #337 on: February 14, 2008, 11:59:03 AM »

Mark doesn't post here much anymore.
Logged

Every time you spell Smile as SMiLE, an angel's wings are forcibly torn off its body.
carl r
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


View Profile
« Reply #338 on: February 18, 2008, 11:07:21 AM »

My question is about the song Surf's Up, not sure if Mark or anybody can help.

I understand that bits were recorded '66-'67.

To what extent was the brass arrangements and instrumentation complete, and who composed the backing for the track?

Or was a large part written by Carl Wilson for the album? Would it be more fair to include Carl in the writing credits, or did he simply try to reproduce the earlier sessions?
Logged
Roger Ryan
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1528


View Profile
« Reply #339 on: February 18, 2008, 01:56:32 PM »

My question is about the song Surf's Up, not sure if Mark or anybody can help.

I understand that bits were recorded '66-'67.

To what extent was the brass arrangements and instrumentation complete, and who composed the backing for the track?

Or was a large part written by Carl Wilson for the album? Would it be more fair to include Carl in the writing credits, or did he simply try to reproduce the earlier sessions?

I'm fairly certain the only thing added to the 1966/67 "Surf's Up" backing track for its 1971 incarnation is the moog bass. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a little organ was overdubbed as well, but not sure of that. The piano, bass, guitar, percussion and horns are all from the original SMiLE sessions and would have been written, arranged and produced by Brian.

Note, of course, that only the first movement's backing track exists (some claim to have heard a second movment backing tracking of '66/67 vintage, but that's more of a rumor at this point). For the second movement and closing round, Brian's piano demo was used (again, the only thing added was the moog bass). If Carl added anything songwriting-wise, it could be the arrangment of the closing round which, of course, borrows heavily from Brian's vocal arrangement for "Child Is Father Of The Man". The lyrics to this portion ("A children's song...") could have come from Jack Reiley or Brian himself...or maybe were vintage lyrics from Parks.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 01:57:56 PM by Roger Ryan » Logged
aeijtzsche
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2560



View Profile
« Reply #340 on: March 08, 2008, 07:41:36 PM »

Hi Mark, hope you're well...and I don't know if you're checking in here much, but I have a question for you all the same.

I'm still investigating and trying to understand the ins and outs of the consoles Brian used in the mid sixties and of course your console, I happened across this Engineering/Electronics resource page with a block diagram drawn up by Bill Putnam mapping out all the signal paths possible.  So what I'm trying to get now is exactly how the reverb signals were handled.

According to the diagram, the "echo sends" are keyed off the program bus switches, I know that, you explained that to me some time ago.

But here's where I need clearing up:

Presumably a maximum of three discrete reverbs could be used, right?  If need was.  And then, if you're sending a little bit of drums to the same chamber that you're sending a lot of piano to, it all just got mixed up and came out together down the same program bus?

Was it common, as far as you can tell, to not use more than one chamber on a session but still be getting more than one return?

I'm thinking in particular about something like "Good to my Baby" where it seems like there's a lot of reverb on the guitar coming back on a different track panned away from the guitar.

Anyway, just hoping to be an expert on the 610 console one day...
Logged
yrplace
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 234


View Profile
« Reply #341 on: March 08, 2008, 09:16:29 PM »

Got an e-mail notice saying that you'd posted....... You're correct the 610 console , and most consoles in this era , had only one reverb send on an input. In the case of the 610 consoles there were a total of three sends that were automatically selected along with the matching main output buss  (left , center, right) that a particular chl was assigned to. So a mic assigned to left (track 1) would also be assigned to reverb send 1 which would be returned to the same left buss which wet out to the 1st chl of the 3 or 4 track tapedeck. The amount of reverb on a chl was driven first by the overall chl gain control and then the individual reverb send control. So a mic could have any amount of desired reverb (or tape slapback) added to it just like today. The combination of instruments (mics) to the three tracks (starting around 65 before that it was all mono) varied from track to track somewhat although the horns almost always got their own track  which was usually track 2. Reverb and / or slap might be on 1, 2 or 3 main outputs and each required a separate device (chamber, plate or tape slap) and whatever the selection it was returned and added to the same output as the direct signal.

The console in Studio 3 at Western used unbalanced summing networks and was only capable of 3 and later 4 track output, so all the mics had to be combined to just those outputs. I don't know when that console was modified to allow 4 track outputs , but Brian never recorded to more than three tracks at a time with the live mono mix usually fed to track 4.

Hope that helps..... Let me know where I can see that article you mentioned where Putnam describes the signal path of the console....... Mark
Logged
aeijtzsche
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2560



View Profile
« Reply #342 on: March 08, 2008, 10:23:56 PM »

Thanks Mark.  The block diagram of the console drawn by Putnam, I couldn't find it online anymore but I have it as a .pdf file I'd be happy to send you if you like.  It's very interesting, though I wish my knowledge of electric stuff was better.

Here's another question for you:  When did consoles start having polarity/phase flip switches on the inputs?  Have you ever come across any indication that the engineers of the pre-phase-switch era, like Britz for instance, ever came across a phase problem bad enough that couldn't be entirely solved by mic placement?  I guess it helps when you don't have 17 mics on the drums...

Oh, two more questions actually:  In the Smile Tour Book, there's a picture of Brian, opposite the beginning of the Darian interview, where he's sitting in front of what looks to be a mini, 4-input console with 610 input channels, any idea what that is?  Just an out-of-date old console?  Or to gang up inputs when they had more than 12 sources?

And last, what were they using for direct boxes in circa 65-66?  The direct guitars always sound so good.

As always, thanks for your time, Mark.
Logged
yrplace
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 234


View Profile
« Reply #343 on: March 08, 2008, 11:09:03 PM »

Phase switches don't really turn up until the late 70's but studios had patch cords that would reverse the phase of a signal. I still use those same cables sometimes.

The picture you mention looks like mastering or mixdown room probably at Western tho it could be United. Because of the small number of tracks (this room looks like its setup for 4 track to mono mixing ) the final mix was often done this way rather than using the larger more expensive rooms.
Logged
yrplace
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 234


View Profile
« Reply #344 on: March 08, 2008, 11:11:45 PM »

missed your last question. Direct boxes in that period were all custom made by the studios using various stock transformers. I have an old DI from the Record Plant in NY as well as several from Regent Sound in NYC......

I know united/ Western had their own custom DI's , but I've never seen one.

Mark
Logged
aeijtzsche
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2560



View Profile
« Reply #345 on: March 09, 2008, 01:39:32 PM »

Thanks.  You've been very helpful in helping me understand how it all went down, technically, in the studio during my favorite era.

Now the only thing missing is a wide-angle shot of the wrecking crew on a Beach Boys session...and careful photo documentation of the microphones used....haha.
Logged
aeijtzsche
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2560



View Profile
« Reply #346 on: March 16, 2008, 10:25:45 AM »

Mark: another question sort of relating to something I mentioned previously:

When a recording date necessitated more than the 12 inputs that the board in Western 3 (or wherever) had, have you heard what the practice was to get all the inputs in?

I was reviewing some of the lineups on Pet Sounds last night, and on something like God Only Knows, I figure:

1.  Kick
2.  Overhead
3.  percussion/blocks
4.  Sleigh Bells
5.  String Bass
6.  Fender
7.  Dano bass
8.  Piano
9.  Harpsi
10.  Carl's 12-string direct
11.  accordions
12.  French Horn
13.  horn section
14.  Strings
15.  "
16.  cello?


Something like 16 inputs.  And I know there were bigger sessions than this.  I suppose the percussion could all be to one input, but sometimes there would be disparate things like timpani and bells that would presumably need their own mics.  On Wouldn't It Be Nice I figure the intro guitars could have been ganged up onto one input, but surely most other things would need more individual control and that would preclude ganging up too much.

Just still wondering how it all went down.
Logged
aeijtzsche
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2560



View Profile
« Reply #347 on: March 16, 2008, 06:14:16 PM »

Also Mark, when Hal (or whoever) was miked liked this:






Where it's more or less just a Small Diaphragm Condenser on the whole kit, in your opinion would a cardioid capsule or omni capsule be used?  Particularly when he's playing the octoplus toms...

Also, do you recognize the mics used?

And for fun, maybe from the Dance Dance Dance session?:
« Last Edit: March 20, 2008, 06:58:03 PM by aeijtzsche » Logged
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4417


View Profile WWW
« Reply #348 on: March 16, 2008, 07:19:20 PM »

Naw, in that last one, Al's hair is too long to be '64 (dig the sideburns!). 
Probably something more like "Loop de Loop" (which Hal played on).
Logged
aeijtzsche
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2560



View Profile
« Reply #349 on: March 16, 2008, 07:34:41 PM »

Yeah, Hal looks too old, too.  It was just the first thing that came to mind where both he and Al would've been recording together.  Doesn't look like Gold Star or a United/Western deal, too "gray" or something...and it sort of looked like what I'd seen of RCA.  As if I could really tell from that narrow of a shot.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 21 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.343 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!