LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  July 2007

ARSCLIST July 2007

Subject:

Re: The 35mm fad and record ageing

From:

Roger and Allison Kulp <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:07:18 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (154 lines)

Tom,

Both from past posts of yours here,and from the old "Classic Record Collector" articles,I gathered 35mm recording was largely a Mercury/Fine(Command),and Everest thing exclusively.Occasionally a Cameo/Parkway,or someone else would diddle with it,but that was about it as far as I know.

Everest had pretty nice pressings,from 1958-63,when Harry Belock was overseeing things.


                                  Roger
Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Hi Steve:

A couple of points.

First of all, Everest pioneered 35mm recording and their original belief and marketing tack was that 
it was a superior medium to tape -- greater s/n and greater dynamics due to no saturation problems 
plus no print-thru problems (which apparently many labels had trouble with with classical recordings 
made on Scotch tapes in the 1950's -- Mercury always used AudioTape and I don't recall hearing a lot 
of print-thru stories). I have heard many reports beyond yours about the poor quality of Everest 
vinyl. Indeed, one of the marketing hooks used by Vanguard when the Everest classical recording were 
first remastered to CD in the early 1990's what that finally fans could hear what they _really_ 
sound like vs. the poor-quality records. There was an interesting if somewhat fact-challenged 
article about the Everest remasters in Mix magazine in 1994. Lonn Henrichsen recently completed a 
2-part history of Everest being published in a British audio/music magazine, name of course escapes 
me when I need it!

As for editng 35mm masters, it's not as difficult as you might think. Remember the film moves at 
what amounts to 18 inches per second, so lining up sprocket holes was doable even to insert a 
percussion beat. The splices were straight-across so they were slightly more audible than angled 
tape splices, but some editors may have done custom cuts on an angle and the much lower background 
hiss mitigated most of the audibility. The original Everest studio setup used a Moviola table with 
3-track magnetic heads according to Frayne's article. Mercury had an interesting custom rig -- an 
Ampex 300 transport with 2" custom guides and 3-track film-width heads and a custom-machined capstan 
motor "puck" so the thing moved film at 18 inches per second. The editor (Harold Lawrence) could 
then edit the film just like he was used to with 1/2" tape, the only difference being that splices 
need to line up vis-a-vis the sprocket holes -- and even in that case it didn't need to be 
super-precision because the Westrex film drive had small-diameter sprocket wheels and small sprocket 
teeth so it was forgiving on not-perfect splices and also on shrunken film. I'm not sure how Command 
did their editing, they might have inherited the Everest Moviola table.

As I said in my original post, the number of music-recording studios was limited. As far as I know, 
aside from perhaps movie soundtracks not marketed as superior-sounding because they were made on 
35mm, no Hollywood film soundstages were used for this recording fad.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Smolian" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The 35mm fad and record ageing


> One of the underlying questions is- who had 35mm equipment?  I suppose such recording was possible 
> in Hollywood, using, say, a Foley stage and individual 35mm tracks- however many the recorder was 
> set up for.  I have a vague memory of a chamber group being recorded this way.
>
> Editing alternate takes would be a nightmare since the spockets would be in different places for 
> each take.  I'd say they would have to have been "direct to film."   It's too likely a fun idea 
> not to have been tested.
>
> One advantage to 35mm film- one strip thereov- was the possibilty of using wider tracks to reduce 
> signal to noise.  Even though I worked for Everest- street salesman- I never understood why they 
> used that unvinyl which went noisy after a limited number of plays, much faster than vinyl.  That 
> kinda cancelled the s/n advantage of the tape.
>
> All playback comments refer to the records when current.  Each pressing formula ages differently 
> and, when played back today, will have about 50 years of chemical reaction with the world which 
> will have created differences among them that were of no consequence when they were fresh.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
> .
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Fine" 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:31 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] The 35mm fad
>
>
>>I am trying to gather facts for what might be a web page maybe an article about the short but 
>>exciting fad of using 35mm mag-film as the original recording/mastering medium for music records 
>>back in the late 50's and early 60's. I have a bunch of good information on Everest, Mercury 
>>Living Presence and Command but would like to know more details about the few other studios that 
>>deployed 35mm and also if there were any record companies beyond Everest, Mercury, Command and 
>>later Project 3 that used this technology as a featured part of their marketing.
>>
>> This guy in Japan did a pretty good job collecting references to most of the Mercury Perfect 
>> Presence Sound series:
>> http://microgroove.jp/mercury/PPS.shtml
>> [BTW, the PPS series was different from the Living Presence use of 35mm in that these were 
>> multi-mic studio production albums probably set up to compete against stuff like Command's 
>> hifi-extravaganzas. Living Presence 35mm records were made like all the rest -- 3 mics to 3 
>> tracks, editing on session tapes and mastering to LP with a live 3-2 mixdown so the LP master was 
>> one generation away from the session recording. The three Fennell albums were the only time 
>> Mercury classical-marketed albums were done with many mics in a studio-production type 
>> atmosphere. The Victor Herbert and George Gershwin albums were done on tape at Fine Recording in 
>> Manhattan. The Cole Porter album was done at Fine Recording Bayside (former Everest studio) on 
>> 35mm.]
>>
>> Note that not all PPS series albums were done on 35mm, but from this discography (which is 
>> basically lifted from Ruppli), it appears that 35mm albums were done at Fine Recording, United 
>> Recording (Bill Putnam) in Hollywood, Radio Recorders in Hollywood and maybe -- but it's not 
>> clear --  Universal Recording in Chicago.
>>
>> Later, in the mid and late 60's, Enoch Light's Project 3 made 35mm-master recordings at Fine 
>> Recording and later at A&R Studios in NY.
>>
>> I don't know if this fad was ever wider-spread -- that's what I'm hoping other listmembers might 
>> know.
>>
>> I'd also love to know details about the 35mm recording equipment and techniques at the Hollywood 
>> recording studios mentioned, Universal Recording and A&R. For instance, at Fine Recording the 
>> Westrex recording and playback EQ curves were tweaked to produce flatter extended treble response 
>> for music recording. I don't know if Hollywood in the early 60's operated on a standard EQ curve 
>> for 35mm recording or if Westrex machines had one curve, RCA had another, etc. Did other 
>> music-album recording studios tweak their film machines to have an extended/flatter top end?
>>
>> Finally, in case I do a web page, discography info about any Mercury albums not detailed on the 
>> page above and anything that was not on Mercury, Command, Everest or Project 3 that is a 
>> confirmed case of 35mm original recording/master.
>>
>> Thanks in advance. This fad ended up pretty short-lived among the record companies due to the 
>> high cost 35mm and the limited number of studios using it. But, the sensation definitely raised 
>> the quality bar on regular magnetic tape. Several Ampex veterans have told me that Ampex's 
>> extensive re-thinking and science research of magnetic recording that led to the MR-70 was 
>> because corporate and marketing people panic'd about 35mm's perceived superiority. The MR-70 was 
>> by all accounts an amazing piece of engineering and capable of superior sound to all other tape 
>> machines of the time, but was priced too high for the market and thus was a monetary/business 
>> failure. Once solid-state technology matured a bit, Ampex was able to produce the same superior 
>> electric specs and nearly as good mechanical specs at market-bearable prices with the AG-440. 
>> Research for the MR-70 led to numerous AES papers which expanded the knowledge and science of 
>> magnetic recording and tape recorder design. I'd be curious to know if there were other similar 
>> indirect fall-outs from the 35mm fad.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> PS -- for those interested, John Frayne of Westrex wrote an article for the AES Journal in 1960 
>> that gives a lot of detail about the original Everest setup. And there was a 1967 Popular Science 
>> article detailing step-by-step a Project 3 session recorded to 35mm at Fine Recording, then 
>> taking the album thru the editing, mastering and manufacturing process.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/893 - Release Date: 
>> 7/9/2007 5:22 PM
>>
> 


       
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager