More Interesting Recording Techniques From The Past

[Deleted member 133]

A few weeks back Rammis and I exchanged posts in a thread. We were discussing RCA's "Dynagroove" technology.

That planted a seed: I needed to finally get around to cataloging and entering my Dad's record collection into my music database.

So I've been doing so on this rainy Friday afternoon - album by album.

A lot of these albums date from the late '50s through to the early '60s. At that time there was apparently a lot of jockeying for market share through the use of new stereo technologies. Many albums have more space dedicated on their covers and liners to recording techniques and technologies than to the artist(s) music.

One that I'm just now processing involves Mercury Records' "f:35d" - "Perfect Presence Sound marks a new film breakthrough in sound engineering. Only Mercury's f:35d recording technique can achieve 'infinite depth' in the widest range of authentic sound possible. Original recording made on 35 mm film."

That last bit is new to me - at least from a purely sound recording perspective.

It turns out the "35 mm film" is three track 35 mm magnetic film - with the following claimed recording advantages (which I summarize):

1. There is no tape hiss.
2. No flutter.
3. No cross-talk between recording channels
4. Less danger of print-through in storage
5. Better transient response and greatly extended frequency range due to 18 ips film speed.

Kinda cool.

It would be neat if I could find some of those recordings in HD digital (of some sort), preferably in original 3.0, or even stereo CD, transferred directly from the source film. I'll do some searching as time permits.

Jeff

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

A few weeks ago I posted an image of some 35 mm magnetic film I have in my studio. I think its in this thread:

http://theaudioannex.com/forum/threads/hd-vinyl-is-coming-soon.12576/page-2#post-222632

I used to work with 35 mm magnetic film a lot when I was working in motion picture sound. It's probably the best analog recording Technology there is because of the size of the tracks and the speed of the film. It's very expensive however, and that limited its use in music only recordings. For movie sound, its use was a fool proof way to keep synchronization between sound and picture, especially during post production. Digital sound has completely replaced analog sound in the movie industry now.

 

[Deleted member 133]

Thanks for the reminder.

I would have remembered that if it were not for my short-term memory loss.

Now where was I...?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I might add one thought - in the early days of Hi-Fi and stereo, the marketing machines of the record companies were well tuned and cranking out the BS like no tomorrow. The studios themselves were remarkably similar in their equipment, techniques and capabilities, but you'd never know it by the miraculous "breakthroughs" each label's marketing department came up with. 35mm magnetic film was certainly a better medium than the usual 1/2" tape most masters used, but it wasn't that much better and as usual the capabilities of the artists and technical people meant far more than the gear they used.

 

[Deleted member 133]

I am amazed by the additional "marketing" detail I'm seeing on and as part of some of these albums.

For example London's release of Werner Muller and His Orchestra's Hawaiian Swing (1963) is a single disc but in a dual-disc folder. The inside of the folder has a huge pic of a mixing board and an extra overlaid "rice paper" thin see-through sheet showing how piano bas and flute are mixed. They called theirs "phase 4 stereo + i.m.20c.r. (individually monitored 20 channel recording)". The rest of the inside folder lists other albums in London's "repertoire." Only the back of the cover has anything about Werner and the songs on his album.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I have a number of phase four albums of popular music and classical music. In general I find that the hyped up sound gets tiring after a very short time. Of recordings during that era I find the the Command label tended to have the best sound. It wasn't remotely natural-sounding but at least it sounded pleasant.

 

[Deleted member 133]

So in my first post in this thread, this is the 1962 album I was talking about.



I've not (yet) had any luck tracking down a 3.0 HD version of it. But I keep looking.

However I did manage to download an earlier (1960) Fennell album that's available in 3.0 on SACD, also on the Mercury label.



From the notes: "Recording equipment: 3-track half inch tape / three Telefunken 201 microphones." It sounds very good; bonus that I like Sousa's music (and not just because of Monty Python!) But it's still tape, not 35mm magnetic film.

After a bit more searching I came across this one, also on the Mercury label, in 3.0, on SACD, which was recorded using 35mm magnetic in 1962.



I'm hoping to give it a listen in my main HT tonight.

Oh and by the by, with my interest piqued in 35mm magnetic tape audio recording, I came across this really informative slide deck. Particularly informative given the numerous album covers (Everest, Command, Mercury etc.) shown in the deck!

Jeff

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

So in my first post in this thread, this is the 1962 album I was talking about.

View attachment 7732

I've not (yet) had any luck tracking down a 3.0 HD version of it. But I keep looking.

However I did manage to download an earlier (1960) Fennell album that's available in 3.0 on SACD, also on the Mercury label.

View attachment 7733

From the notes: "Recording equipment: 3-track half inch tape / three Telefunken 201 microphones." It sounds very good; bonus that I like Sousa's music (and not just because of Monty Python!) But it's still tape, not 35mm magnetic film.

After a bit more searching I came across this one, also on the Mercury label, in 3.0, on SACD, which was recorded using 35mm magnetic in 1962.

View attachment 7734

I'm hoping to give it a listen in my main HT tonight.

Oh and by the by, with my interest piqued in 35mm magnetic tape audio recording, I came across this really informative slide deck. Particularly informative given the numerous album covers (Everest, Command, Mercury etc.) shown in the deck!

Jeff

Tom Fine is the son of Robert Fine who made those recordings. If you go to the Ampex site which is http://lena.recordist.com/mailman/listinfo/ampex there is a newsgroup which covers all of this in great detail from the mouths of the people who originally designed the equipment and made the recordings. I occasionally post there. If you want you can communicate with Tom Fine and some of the other old timers who were there during that time directly through that site. When I was restoring my Ampex 350, I was lucky to be able to have a lengthy email exchange with a couple of the guys who actually designed the damn machine in the early 1950s!

The 35mm machines which Fine Recording used were originally purchased custom made from Westrex by Harry Belock of Everest Records. After he went out of business, Fine Recording bought all the equipment, including the 35mm machines and the result is the series of recordings you have, and also the Command Records series of 35mm recordings and much other stuff. If you really get into it, there is a vast historical worm-hole of information on the early days of audio recording available on the interwebs and the Wikipedia machine. Sorry to say, this is all way too esoteric to be of any interest for most of the people on this forum......

 

[CMonster]

^I don’t post in most threads like this because I’m out of my element but I read them and find them fascinating.