Re: [ARSCLIST] Two other N.Y. Times article on a different type of digitizing

[Scott Phillips <scottp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would agree with you for the most part. I spent a good deal of time
around Tom Dowd around those years, and I have some trouble thinking of
him as the problem with the sounds themselves. He seemed to have a very,
very good ear. Not that it actually applies, but Tom was very, very
bright, something you didn't get just to look at him. He looked more
like a leftover '50's beatnik than anything. He actually worked on the
Manhattan project during WW2, of all things. What I remember most was
his ability to get a good session vibe out of a bad one, and get much
more out of the musicians than they thought they had. Generally the
talent really loved him, and not because he was soft on them.

Now that I think about it, I do remember that the record companies
tended to give Tom the sessions that were either already a mess, or were
likely to be. He also seemed to bring things in close to budget in an
era of waste and drug abuse.

My recollection was also that the owner of Criteria was involved in the
engineering on these sessions as well, and God bless him, I can remember
his engineering and mixing described more than once as if "Helen Keller
mixed that...". There was no excuse for that in terms of microphones,
consoles, speakers, outboard gear and the like. It was all top of the
line stuff, well maintained, with 24/7 maintenance in house. The
in-house engineers were generally very decent, when they were used. The
control room for most of the 'Derek' tapes, Studio 'A', the control room
was the smallest and oldest at Criteria, but the studio room was quite
large with very high ceilings. The gear was not old or out of date.
Mixing in 'A' was something you had to work at, as the control room was
too small to sound good. It was a good room to track in, but not mix. It
didn't explain the high noise levels on those tapes though...it
shouldn't have happened. 

..Sorry to all if this is all off topic or not of general interest...!!

..Best regards,

Scott Phillips



-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:13 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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
>>>
>