My 77DX has an assortment of polar patterns. How it sounds backwards would
be very dependant on the pattern selection position. Were there some 77s
that were only Bi-directional ?
2012/9/29 DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>
> An RCA 77 backwards shouldn't sound much different than it does forewards
> - since in the early days of electrical recording absolute phase became
> less of an issue than it had been in the acoustic days.
> My apologies to David Lewis, I didn't realize that you had done the noise
> reduction on this yourself; I thought you were just auditioning it as it
> was on the LP. For me the biggest problem is the eq, I find that most
> often, (like on the youtube version), the record sounds best with little or
> no eq introduced.
> > From: Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: 'DAVID BURNHAM' <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:15:32 PM
> >Subject: RE: [ARSCLIST] Why Does Take 1 of Jimmy Lunceford's "White Heat"
> Sound This Way?
> >Well, the youtube version sounds like the same take to me, right? The
> >effect, which I hear most during the bass solo, sounds like a room
> >reflection. Is this the first take of the session? If on other takes the
> >band sounds more present or direct, I'd guess that on the first the main
> >was pointed away - even backwards, which isn't too hard to do with a
> >mic like the RCA 77. Sounds like a live/reflective room.
> >The open trumpet is loud enough to saturate the room. The muted solo
> >like there's a mic on him, but its gain would be too low to contribute to
> >phase effect.
> >A harried, distracted, or hung-over recordist just starting his day? All
> >guesses without knowing what the studio setup was like or other
> >Sure is hot! Thanks for the Lunceford intro. I'll have to hear more.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of DAVID BURNHAM
> >Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:01 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Why Does Take 1 of Jimmy Lunceford's "White Heat"
> >Sound This Way?
> >You have at least as much experience with this as I do but as I listen and
> >compare the clean youtube version to the parked file, the first thing that
> >strikes me is ill-advised eq, giving it a dark distant sound. The second
> >thing is likely the artifacts of either poorly adjusted or poor quality
> >noise reduction; the reason the trumpets are less affected is that with
> >noise reduction program artifacts are most noticeable on lower level
> >- signals which are closer in level to the noise which is being removed.
> >That's my two cents worth!
> >> From: David Lewis <[log in to unmask]>
> >>To: [log in to unmask]
> >>Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:10:46 AM
> >>Subject: [ARSCLIST] Why Does Take 1 of Jimmy Lunceford's "White Heat"
> >This Way?
> >>I have parked a file of it here:
> >>This comes from X LP LX 3002, which was issued in 1953. It is not one of
> >>Ethel Gabriel's enthusiastically skewered "simulated stereo" remixes, but
> >>this weird flanging effect is in the mono original.
> >>I used to have a buff Bluebird that had this very take on it, and when I
> >>listened to it, I would think "What in the world.....??"
> >>It sounds like it could have been the result of two mikes out of phase,
> >>two takes cut into the same platter, but if that was the case you'd hear
> >>artifacts in the trumpet solo, not the case here. There
> >>is a more common take 2 that sounds normal. Mx. is BS-81324 according to
> >>the jacket notes of LX 3002, recorded 1-26-1934.
> >>Uncle Dave Lewis
> >>Lebanon, OH
*sent from my ringing donkey*