[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Two other N.Y. Times article on a different type of digitizing
I think there was a lot of turmoil going on, everyone had drug problems and the sessions were stop
and start as far as being productive. There are some paragraphs about the atmosphere in the sessions
in the booklet for Clapton's "Crossroads" box set. The other problem is that either Tom Dowd or
Clapton didn't exercise production discipline about stacking up guitars all in the same frequency
areas and with very similar amp/effects sounds. Stack on too much hiss and you get a terrible sea of
mud. The 5.1 mix for SACD is ever so slightly better. One thing it does is break out the excellent
Hammond playing and put it separate from the slurry heap of same-tone guitar tracks.
Basically, when you hear the term "that sits well in the mix" think the opposite of any individual
instrument in the Derek and the Dominos album.
BTW, another Clapton album made at Criteria "461 Ocean Blvd." also had a very muddy/hazey sound in
the LP days but was completely clarified and made excellent in the 5.1 SACD mix. Everything is
crystal clear and you can hear all these intricate guitar things that are buried, also much clearer
and stronger keyboard tracks.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Phillips" <scottp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Two other N.Y. Times article on a different type of digitizing
The master 24 track tapes for 'Derek and the Dominos' are still are
around. The recordings were done at Criteria Recording in Miami, and at
least through 2002 the masters were still there. I used to work there
years ago, (the '80's) and sometimes late at night I'd get famous tapes
out of the tape vault and listen to them just for the heck of it. You
are right, the playing was wonderful, but the recording was terrible. On
the 2 track masters, the mastering engineer's notes showed all manner of
things done to try to help them out. Strange though, there were many
fine recordings done at Criteria, the equipment, facilities and
recording engineering talent was all available.... Why these particular
tracks (24 track and 2 track) sounded so bad was and is a mystery to
me...
Best regards,
Scott Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:30 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Two other N.Y. Times article on a different type
of digitizing
I figured it was still crude, but it's moving there. The next step will
be taking individual tracks of Really Badly Recorded multi-track
recordings like, say Derek and the Dominos and recreating them in
super-fidelity. Think of the possibilities -- a whole new way to reissue
every "classic recording." Too much potential $$$ to leave on the table.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating any of this, just looking at where
it's headed.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcos Sueiro" <mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Two other N.Y. Times article on a different type
of digitizing
Tom,
It looks like the first article is exactly about that. Only MIDI is
too crude a language (e.g.
only sustain pedal on/off), so I think Zenph created its own software.
As the reviewer points out, though, a performer will change his
performance with the instrument. I
would add: a performer will also change his performance to the hall
(although maybe less in a
studio).
I would also add that I have heard few (no?) Yamaha pianos that I
like.
Marcos
Tom Fine wrote:
One thing related to this I've always wondered. For instance, an old
piano recording, a great
performance but a crapola 78 recording. Why couldn't modern MIDI
software recreate all the subtle
attack, decay, rhythmic eccentricities, etc that make the performance
unique and then play it
back on a good if not fantastic sounding MIDI Yamaha grand piano, for
example? Not sure if this
is doable to the level of precision I'd want, but it's an interesting
thing. Perhaps one day, all
low-fidelity recordings of great musical merit can be recreated in
high fidelity. Then again,
perhaps not?
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcos Sueiro"
<mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:40 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Two other N.Y. Times article on a different type
of digitizing
The first is about the new recordings of Zenph's "recreations" of
performances in old recordings
(How are we going to note these in the metadata?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/arts/music/12conn.html
This one is about preserving videogames (which, of course, include
sound). You may think it is
challenging to safely point a digital file of audio to, say, the
corresponding LP cover. Imagine
keeping the code and machines necessary to "preserve" these:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/arts/design/12vide.html
Marcos
CU Libraries