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 delay
>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 mic
>was pointed away - even backwards, which isn't too hard to do with a ribbon
>mic like the RCA 77. Sounds like a live/reflective room.
>The open trumpet is loud enough to saturate the room. The muted solo sounds
>like there's a mic on him, but its gain would be too low to contribute to a
>A harried, distracted, or hung-over recordist just starting his day? All
>guesses without knowing what the studio setup was like or other recordings.
>Sure is hot! Thanks for the Lunceford intro. I'll have to hear more.
>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 any
>noise reduction program artifacts are most noticeable on lower level signals
>- 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" Sound
>>I have parked a file of it here: https://www.box.com/s/6hq39rgxp0nd53pnty0n
>>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, or
>>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