gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 09:41:10 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: For Mark Linett - Good to My Baby signal flow  (Read 1837 times)
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« on: April 05, 2020, 08:55:53 AM »

Hello Mark, if you read this, I'm sure we all hope you are faring OK during the lockdown.

As far as Good To My Baby goes:

It sounds like this is one of those rare instances where the reverb return was bussed to a different track than the dry inputs.  On both the UM presentation and on your much sonically superior remix, the dry, essentially mono band is panned soft left and all of the reverb from those instruments is on a separate track, panned hard right.  The horns also seem to be on the same track as the reverb return, with a bit of their own reverb perhaps?

Since this would be a deliberate decision, can you think of why they routed it that way?  It would make sense if the horns were not on the same track because then you could just adjust the reverb return like we do now with such effects.  But with the horns on there, it's not quite so straightforward.

Could it be some sort of tentative and sort of endearingly clumsy move to allow Brian to start to back off from the Wall of Sound thing while leaving the possibility there, when mixing, to bring a big reverbed sound back into the mix?


Incidentally, to those of you reading, this track, either Mark's mix or especially the UM boot, is a great little window to hear what a 100% wet reverb return would have sounded like.  If you pan hard right, before the horns upset the unity of it, what you hear is only the return from the chamber or EMT plate (OR springs, I guess!). It's neat.
Logged
yrplace
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 261


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2020, 09:04:11 PM »

To try and answer your question I put on the original track session tape which is laid out with most of the band on track 1, nothing on track 2 and the horns and echo return of the band on track 3. To put the reverb return for track 1 on track 3 Chuck Britz would have had to patch the track 1 echo return to and input chl and assigned that to track 3 since the normal setup on the UA console automatically  went to the same track that the mic modules were assigned to.

Listening to the session and the master my guess is that Brian wanted some control over the amount of reverb added to the percussion breaks and the intro when he mixed the record.

Hope that helps.......Mark
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2020, 09:10:04 PM »

It does, thank you, Mark.  I hope you're staying well!

It is interesting, as you say, that we know it was a deliberate decision because it had to patched that way.  I think your conjecture about *why* makes a lot of sense.

Thanks again, I always appreciate you answering my arcane questions and I appreciate that you took the time to pull up the session.
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2020, 11:17:48 PM »

Mark, in your experience and opinion, how frequently in the 3-track / 4-track era did Brian and his engineers have discrete reverbs on all three tracks?

Also, forgive me for still not quite being clear --  The typical flow on the UA (and the like) consoles would be that each channel had an "echo send" - was that pre- or post-fader?  Then that echo send would automatically switch when the program selection was made to the corresponding echo send, which could be alternately patched as discussed above.

Then the returns or "receives" as I've seen printed on some chassis, would basically just be auxiliary inputs normalled to be combined with the corresponding l-c-r submaster? 
Logged
yrplace
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 261


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2020, 08:19:41 PM »

Correct. Each chl had a post fader echo send that was routed to the same numbered output as the main buss assignment.  So if you assigned a chl to buss 1 the echo send went to echo send 1 etc. There were three line level echo returns that were hardwired to busses 1, 2 and 3.

I believe on the studio 3 console the returns were passive ie they had a gain control but not an amplifier. The Studio 2 console I think had amps on the echo returns .

As far as the use of reverb and tape delay it all depended on the track and since there was a fair amount of bleed , reverb put on the band mics was usually enough even if the track was being split to three tracks as began happening around 1966. Horns always went on their own track and the rest was split up in various ways but as far as i know always monitored in mono because that's the only format that mattered.

Mark
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2020, 08:39:24 PM »

Correct. Each chl had a post fader echo send that was routed to the same numbered output as the main buss assignment.  So if you assigned a chl to buss 1 the echo send went to echo send 1 etc. There were three line level echo returns that were hardwired to busses 1, 2 and 3.

I believe on the studio 3 console the returns were passive ie they had a gain control but not an amplifier. The Studio 2 console I think had amps on the echo returns .

As far as the use of reverb and tape delay it all depended on the track and since there was a fair amount of bleed , reverb put on the band mics was usually enough even if the track was being split to three tracks as began happening around 1966. Horns always went on their own track and the rest was split up in various ways but as far as i know always monitored in mono because that's the only format that mattered.

Mark


Thanks Mark!

If the returns on the studio 3 board were passive (and line-level) presumably there was(/is) some kind of amp/circuit that that mics in the chambers would go through before they hit the patch bay?


In your experience, were the horn tracks recorded dry pretty much every time?
Logged
yrplace
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 261


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2020, 10:20:12 AM »

well yes of course if it was at the chamber the mics went into dedicated mic preamps set to a fixed gain and then the line level out went to the console. It was the same even if the echo returns on the desk had amps. Those amps weren't used a mic preamps .

The chambers can be thought of as self-contained units just as if they were EMT lates or a standalone reverb box.

Yes the horns were usually recorded dry. and in all cases more reverb could be added when the track was mixed or premixed into mono
Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.206 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!