One more point about recording booths. I think some of what we like about the more
primatively-recorded blues, hillbilly and other "folk" musics recorded in the 30s and 40s is a
result of the highly damped small recording spaces often used. I've read accounts of Paramount
artists talking about a small studio so blanketed and damped that they could barely hear themselves
or their instrument. As a result, they raised the intensity of their singing and playing and this is
what we now call "raw, immediate, passionate." Imagine if these guys were in a modern studio with a
good headphone mix, I doubt they'd know to project their sound out toward the mics enough. So Lorna,
definitely do experiment with a highly damped and somewhat claustrophobic booth. As long as it
doesn't drive your talent batty, it might illicit surprisingly "passionate" performances. You can
also try the old Paramount trick of just using warning lights when the side-time is running out. See
how they improvise endings to their songs. Use your own judgement about whether you want to ply them
with plenty of corn liquor, as was common practice in the 30s and 40s! ;)
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording booths
> Hi Lorna:
>
> This is all good news. You are setting yourself up to succeed. It sounds like you're avoiding the
> pitfalls of un-restored old equipment (all too common in "vintage" projects). Make stuff work like
> it was intended and it's surprising how good it can sound. I own enough well-remastered
> collections of 78s (particularly from Mosaic Records, but there are others who do good work as
> well) to know that when they have lacquers and metal parts to work from, the sound quality is
> quite good for many electronic recordings. For instance, listen to Doug Pomeroy's excellent work
> on the Mosaic box set of Bix/Tram/Teagarden. Where he had non-shellac sources, the sound jumps out
> of the speakers. ARSC contributor Nick Bergh has demonstrated how good both Western Electric and
> RCA mics and preamps sounded on their way to the cutterheads (which were the lowest-fidelity
> element in all electronic disk-cutting systems including the LP).
>
> Regarding which mic you use, I suggest you experiment with well-restored vintage ribbon mics
> (which may require an extra stage of pre-amplification) as well as modern and vintage condenser
> mics (which may require some padding when used in front of loud sources), plus dynamics. You may
> be surprised at how much results will vary. I don't think omni or cardioid will make too much
> difference close-in on a single performer or small group. Indeed, an omni is likely to give the
> "cardboard box" sound in a small booth. The bigger factors will be mic senstivity, response curves
> and placement.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lorna Fulton" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording booths
>
>
>> Ah- I see! The guy who fixed it all for me was an electronic engineer-
>> this included rebuilding cylinders, wiring, lubricating and tightening
>> turntable and all rubber- pretty much everything has been restored- the
>> cutter head was restored by gib at west tech, and the roller by terry's
>> rubber rollers (both in the US). had a lot of help by the people at lathe
>> trolls.
>>
>> Its an EV dynamic mic- we're currently playing around with different
>> kinds- recently tried an omni directional mic, and it made no difference
>> to the recording!
>>
>>
>>
>> Lorna Fulton
>> e: [log in to unmask]
>> t:
>> + 44 (0) 7771 692971
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18/09/2014 17:25, "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Lorna:
>>>
>>>Right, but what MAKE AND MODEL for the mic you're using? We're curious as
>>>to its sensitivity,
>>>directional pattern, etc. This all has bearing on how to use it in a
>>>booth.
>>>
>>>In "fixing up" the Presto recorder, what did your friend do? Do you know
>>>for sure that it runs on
>>>speed and to original mechanical specs? What about the electronics? Did a
>>>technician test each stage
>>>to make sure the noise floor is low and hum is not entering the audio
>>>circuits? And the cutterhead,
>>>how was that restored? I don't know enough about these machines to say
>>>for sure, but if there is
>>>mechanical damping and isolation, I think it's a good bet that
>>>70-year-old rubber or plastic is shot
>>>and lubricants probably need to be cleaned out and replaced. You need to
>>>do all of this just to get
>>>the machine running as it was designed to run and as it ran in the 1940s.
>>>By the way, if the
>>>turntable is driven with a rubber puck (sometimes call a puck-drive or
>>>rim-drive design), it's
>>>likely that the rubber has dried out and the platter thus probably has
>>>bad wow and may not run
>>>on-speed. All of these things can be restored, but care and enterprise
>>>must be practiced because
>>>usable original parts probably don't exist.
>>>
>>>-- Tom Fine
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Lorna Fulton" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:13 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording booths
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh- sorry! Its a 1938 presto Model D: had it all fixed up by a friend as
>>>> it had been sitting in a recording studio for about 40 years and no
>>>>longer
>>>> worked...
>>>> It already has a preamp, so we're using the machine with a standard mic.
>>>>
>>>> My knowledge of the technical side of it isn't brilliant I'm afraid!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lorna Fulton
>>>> e: [log in to unmask]
>>>> t:
>>>> + 44 (0) 7771 692971
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/09/2014 18:08, "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 9/18/2014 2:39 AM, Lorna Fulton wrote:
>>>>>> Its just a standard microphone with xlr/amphenol connector©.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think we'd all like to know the make & model, and what associated
>>>>>recording chain you're using -- preamp or interface etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>Peace,
>>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
