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  September 2014

ARSCLIST September 2014

Subject:

Re: recording booths

From:

Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:06:31 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (125 lines)

"Pillow-factory" - that's a good description of the first 'engineered'
studio I encountered. I'd started as an announcer in a station housed in a
hotel suite where the studio had no acoustic treatment at all. Across town
at the better-funded public station (!), their studio was state of the art
1970, or maybe a design that was a throw-back, built as a combo
recording/broadcasting room. It was such an unnaturally dead space it was
weird to even be in it. And when you spoke, your words seemed to disappear
right past your lips. A ca. 2000 broadcast studio I worked in was not nearly
so damped and didn't feel unnatural, just controlled.

If I can speculate, I'd think that early on the major concern in
broadcasting was for clarity. Any extraneous sound, internal ambience or
external noise, would work against that, as well as risk the waste of
transmitting power in an AM system. Radio quickly became a much bigger
business than records and also seems to have led the technology for
electrical recording. The record business also used radio studios for some
percentage of its production, so it seems reasonable that the influence
would carry through and persist. Valid? As time went on, bigger radio
studios seemed to allow for more ambience. For instance, before the tower,
Capital used a CBS radio studio to good effect. Stoky prevailed on RCA to
open up 8H.

One other aspect is that a 'dead' studio provides a blank acoustical slate,
on which you can apply whatever effects you have to create whatever sound
you're looking for (Electric Lady?). That might be the idea, anyway, though
it's clear in retrospect that it was the studios that had a sound of their
own that are best remembered and most successful for acoustic music (30th
Street). Page's tales of recording Bonham in a big room just one example.
OTOH, the sound of 70s art-pop is intimate; Joni Mitchell, The Eagles, etc,
etc. Big-ambience ala Tony Bennett sounded old-fashioned.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording booths

Another wrinkle on this involves the legendary Robert Johnson recordings.
The booklet notes in the newest remastering includes discussion of exactly
why Johnson wanted to record facing the corner walls of the hotel room.
Speculation had been that he was "shy" or wanted to "hide" the tricks of his
technique, but a new avenue of thought is that he understood the acoustics
of the corner and used it to his advantage, enabling him to highlight
certain guitar tones and picking techniques in service to his songs. The
latest remasters include some very audible room acoustics, and there is a
tonality very different from recordings made in highly damped studios. It's
also worth noting, as a point of comparison, that the hotel rooms Johnson
recorded in were probably bigger than the tiny booth-like studios Paramount
used in Chicago and Wisconsin. Also bigger and definitely less deadened than
Gennett's studio.

One person who was very much against the industry norm of highly deadened
recording spaces was John Hammond. He preferred lively room acoustics and a
single mic or very few mics. He found a kindered spirit in my father, who
was chief engineer at Majestic Records' then new studio in the late 40's. 
Hammond was very much responsible for sheparding forward the single-mic
techniques that were later used on Mercury Living Presence in the mono era.
When my father moved to Reeves Sound Studios, he took down the heavy
curtains and installed diffusers in the big orchestra-sized studio, to allow
for more lively-sounding recordings.

I wonder if the idea of highly-damped and small-room recording spaces came
from early radio studios. 
I remember reading in Barnouw's first book about early studios being little
shacks with heavy padding on the walls and ceilings, similar to the
description of Paramount's studio in Wisconsin. I don't think Edison or
Berliner went to great lengths to damp studios, because they needed a good
amount of sound pressure to collect at the horn mouths.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording booths


> On 2014-09-18 1:48 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> 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.
>
> When I was at ABC-TV in the late 1970s, the ABC morning show invited the
choir of men and boys 
> from St. Thomas Church on Fifth Avenue to perform a short segment. I had
been recording the choir 
> for a while and became good friends with the late Dr. Gerre Hancock, the
director.
>
> When Gerre returned from the gig (which I had no involvement in) the next
time he saw me, he asked 
> "Richard, why do you make these studios sound like pillow factories?"
>
> He was most displeased with the sound to no one's surprise. I think this
took place in TV-2 which 
> was half of what used to be a horseback riding arena and went between 66th
and 67th Streets, but 
> it might have been TV-13 in the then new Seven Lincoln Square building--a
project I did work on, 
> but not for acoustics--that was 8,000 square feet (let's say 240,000 cubic
feet and highly padded.
>
> Dr. Hancock was used to conducing in a stone church of about 2,200,000
cubic feet according to my 
> friend David L. Klepper's 1995-07/08 JAES article.
>
> Just to point out the other extreme of the continuum of acoustical space
influence.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
> -- 
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>
> 

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

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