The Tremeloes - Silence is Golden

[mcp6453[_2_]]

This live performance from the sixties is great. I don't think there is any controversy that it's totally live. However,
where are the mics for the amps? The video is too blurry to see for sure. I guess the backs of the guitar cabinets could
be open.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n03g8nsaBro

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 14-02-2016 17:30, mcp6453 wrote:

> This live performance from the sixties is great. I don't think there is any controversy that it's totally live. However,
> where are the mics for the amps? The video is too blurry to see for sure. I guess the backs of the guitar cabinets could
> be open.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n03g8nsaBro

The audio is blurry as well from the atrocious amounts of echo added.
However using the signal from the loudspeaker output of the amp was well
known back then and may also have been used because it offers
transformer isolation. But yes, mics on the rear of the open back
Fenders is a good guess.

Better sound engineering choices, note choices may have been imposed on
the seemingly wisely recorded tremeloes production, listen to this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsv7USKmhXA

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:30:57 AM UTC-5, mcp6453 wrote:
> This live performance from the sixties is great. I don't think there is any controversy that it's totally live. However,
> where are the mics for the amps? The video is too blurry to see for sure. I guess the backs of the guitar cabinets could
> be open.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n03g8nsaBro

Very nice. I agree, "live".

The Turtle's drummer (from NJ) is always fun to watch. He didn't need any studio help...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f09itrlXcic

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 > wrote:
>This live performance from the sixties is great. I don't think there is any controversy that it's totally live. However,
>where are the mics for the amps? The video is too blurry to see for sure. I guess the backs of the guitar cabinets could
>be open.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n03g8nsaBro

Oh, that's lovely! Double microphones on the vocals for video mix.
Likely the guitars you're hearing are all just leakage into the vocal
microphones.

You can hear they have opened a mike on the lead guitar for the first bar
and then it's closed down: that's probably a rear mike on the cabinet which
was SOP back then.

Just one 421 on the whole drum kit.

The feedback at 1:30 is worth notching out in post, though.

The video is actually pretty good for 405 line system. Camera platforms
aren't so stable, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>
>Better sound engineering choices, note choices may have been imposed on
>the seemingly wisely recorded tremeloes production, listen to this one:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsv7USKmhXA

That's a studio recording being lipsynched. The synch on youtube isn't good
enough to tell if there's any slip, but you're hearing close-miked drums
without any mikes on the kit. Not to mention all the additional percussion
like the chimes, and the horn section. If they were there in the TV studio
they would likely have been in the shot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 16-02-2016 17:26, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:

>> Better sound engineering choices, note choices may have been imposed on
>> the seemingly wisely recorded tremeloes production, listen to this one:

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsv7USKmhXA

> That's a studio recording being lipsynched. The synch on youtube isn't good
> enough to tell if there's any slip, but you're hearing close-miked drums
> without any mikes on the kit. Not to mention all the additional percussion
> like the chimes, and the horn section. If they were there in the TV studio
> they would likely have been in the shot.

Obviously yes, my point was and is that while the real live recording
was done seemingly very right it was verbed to smithereens in post.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 2/19/2016 9:59 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 16-02-2016 17:26, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>
>>> Better sound engineering choices, note choices may have been imposed on
>>> the seemingly wisely recorded tremeloes production, listen to this one:
>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsv7USKmhXA
>
>> That's a studio recording being lipsynched. The synch on youtube
>> isn't good
>> enough to tell if there's any slip, but you're hearing close-miked drums
>> without any mikes on the kit. Not to mention all the additional
>> percussion
>> like the chimes, and the horn section. If they were there in the TV
>> studio
>> they would likely have been in the shot.
>
> Obviously yes, my point was and is that while the real live recording
> was done seemingly very right it was verbed to smithereens in post.
>
>> --scott
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
For what it's worth you're talking about at time
when WAY over the top spring reverbs were in
vogue for car stereo systems.
IMHO, the reverb was quite modest for that
period.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>On 16-02-2016 17:26, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> That's a studio recording being lipsynched. The synch on youtube isn't good
>> enough to tell if there's any slip, but you're hearing close-miked drums
>> without any mikes on the kit. Not to mention all the additional percussion
>> like the chimes, and the horn section. If they were there in the TV studio
>> they would likely have been in the shot.
>
>Obviously yes, my point was and is that while the real live recording
>was done seemingly very right it was verbed to smithereens in post.

That was how it was back then. Everybody was reverb crazy, but at least
at that point they'd got away from thinking slap echo on vocals was a
good thing.

Hell, I worked for an AM station at one point that had a Fisher SpacXpander
spring reverb in the air chain. If the record wasn't already dripping with
reverb, it would be by the time it came out of your car radio.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 2/20/2016 7:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Hell, I worked for an AM station at one point that had a Fisher SpacXpander
> spring reverb in the air chain. If the record wasn't already dripping with
> reverb, it would be by the time it came out of your car radio.

Our radio station had one, and then I replaced it with an Orban 111B. AM sound sucked/sucks.

[Peter Irwin]

mcp6453 > wrote:
>
> AM sound sucked/sucks.

With a local station during daytime, no thunderstorms, a good tuner
and an antenna kept away from local sources of interference - the
tuner output will sound pretty much identical to the transmitter
input. Under those somewhat ideal but often obtainable conditions
any suckage in AM radio will be entirely due to the signal fed to
the transmitter and will have nothing to do with the medium.

Peter.
>

[geoff]

On 22/02/2016 9:54 a.m., Peter Irwin wrote:
> mcp6453 > wrote:
>> AM sound sucked/sucks.
> With a local station during daytime, no thunderstorms, a good tuner
> and an antenna kept away from local sources of interference - the
> tuner output will sound pretty much identical to the transmitter
> input. Under those somewhat ideal but often obtainable conditions
> any suckage in AM radio will be entirely due to the signal fed to
> the transmitter and will have nothing to do with the medium.
>
> Peter.


..... apart from the missing top octave.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 22/02/2016 9:54 a.m., Peter Irwin wrote:
>> mcp6453 > wrote:
>>> AM sound sucked/sucks.
>> With a local station during daytime, no thunderstorms, a good tuner
>> and an antenna kept away from local sources of interference - the
>> tuner output will sound pretty much identical to the transmitter
>> input. Under those somewhat ideal but often obtainable conditions
>> any suckage in AM radio will be entirely due to the signal fed to
>> the transmitter and will have nothing to do with the medium.
>
>.... apart from the missing top octave.

Well, that's the thing.

In the pre-NRSC days of the 1980s, you could have response out to 15kc
legally if you had no adjacent channels to protect. So there were some
stations that did.

Now, unfortunately, as the noise became more and more of a problem in the
70s, receiver manufacturers started restricting the bandwidth of their
radios, to the point where a lot of car radios today have nothing above
4kc, as a consequence of the ever-increasing noise problems in urban areas.
And if course it doesn't matter how wide the transmitter is if the receiver
is cut down.

But there was a time when it was possible to actually get high-fidelity AM,
a day when both receivers and transmitters routinely had response exceeding
8kc or even 10kc, and when the noise floor was not polluted by CFLs and
switching supplies everywhere.

That time is gone, though, and it's not going to come back even if the FCC
was returned to it's pre-Reagan glory and actually started enforcing Part 15
regulations on consumer products again.

And it's now come to the point that Clear Channel Inc, which owns an awful
lot of the major AM stations, has a policy of cutting response off below
5kc, even lower than the limit mandated by the NRSC curves. They don't care
about fidelity, they care about perceived loudness and the more power you
put into one part of the spectrum, the less you can put into others.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 3:57:47 PM UTC-5, Peter Irwin wrote:
> mcp6453 > wrote:
> >
> > AM sound sucked/sucks.
>
> With a local station during daytime, no thunderstorms, a good tuner
> and an antenna kept away from local sources of interference - the
> tuner output will sound pretty much identical to the transmitter
> input. Under those somewhat ideal but often obtainable conditions
> any suckage in AM radio will be entirely due to the signal fed to
> the transmitter and will have nothing to do with the medium.


True, but the real test for AM is shortwave, where bandwidths aren't limited (pirate)!

AM Stereo was nice, but need a good strong signal, sort of like HD Radio.

Jack

>
> Peter.
> >

[jason]

On 21 Feb 2016 17:05:36 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
article >
> In the pre-NRSC days of the 1980s, you could have response out to 15kc
> legally if you had no adjacent channels to protect. So there were some
> stations that did.
>
>
WLW in Cincinnati claimed to be the "hightest fidelity AM station in the
world" during the 60's when I lived there. A friend who was a broadcast
engineer built a 3-tuned-stage crystal radio(!) and piped it into a good
amp and then headphones and the result was astonishing.

[Trevor]

On 22/02/2016 8:15 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 22/02/2016 9:54 a.m., Peter Irwin wrote:
>> mcp6453 > wrote:
>>> AM sound sucked/sucks.
>> With a local station during daytime, no thunderstorms, a good tuner
>> and an antenna kept away from local sources of interference - the
>> tuner output will sound pretty much identical to the transmitter
>> input. Under those somewhat ideal but often obtainable conditions
>> any suckage in AM radio will be entirely due to the signal fed to
>> the transmitter and will have nothing to do with the medium.
>>
>
> .... apart from the missing top octave.

Apart from the missing top 2 or 3 octaves with many AM tuners, including
many not so inexpensive AM/FM tuners where the AM section is only there
so the salesman can say it is.

Trevor.