How Was This Phasing Done?...

[JackA]

While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some technique. Any guesses welcome!!....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI

Thanks!

Jack

[Nil[_2_]]

On 19 Aug 2016, JackA > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was
> done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some
> technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI

That sounds like absolute ****.

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2016 07:12, Nil wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2016, JackA > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was
>> done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some
>> technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI
>
> That sounds like absolute ****.
>
Typical Youtube sound quality.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2016 01:00, JackA wrote:
> While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI
>
The usual method at the time involved two synchronised tape recorders
and a finger on the flange of the feed reel, hence the common name for
the effect at the time of "flanging".

The band are lipsyncing to a playback track, not performing live,and the
abysmal sound quality is due to the number of generations between the
performance and Youbend, not forgetting Youbend's
fantastic data compression system.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:37:05 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/08/2016 01:00, JackA wrote:
> > While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI
> >
> The usual method at the time involved two synchronised tape recorders
> and a finger on the flange of the feed reel, hence the common name for
> the effect at the time of "flanging".
>
> The band are lipsyncing to a playback track, not performing live,and the
> abysmal sound quality is due to the number of generations between the
> performance and Youbend, not forgetting Youbend's
> fantastic data compression system.
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

Thanks, John. Thing is, if you slow the tape down, you have to speed it back up to keep sync. This is just too complex a task to be handled as you describe. Besides, it was issued on CD, with an extended ending (on my site), pure (cleaner) mono. Some say, this "stereo rendition" has yet to be released on CD; had the 45. Not saying it sounds(ed) fantastic, this phased version always sounded crude. Just seems someone discovered something clever creating it, and no one was able to (later) replicate it.

Jack

[JackA]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:12:22 AM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2016, JackA > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
> > While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was
> > done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some
> > technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI
>
> That sounds like absolute ****.

No, the title is Psychotic Reaction, not Absolute ****.

Jack

[[email protected]]

Nil wrote: "That sounds like absolute ****. "

It still suffices to get the point across.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

JackA wrote:

>
> > >
> > The usual method at the time involved two synchronised tape recorders
> > and a finger on the flange of the feed reel, hence the common name for
> > the effect at the time of "flanging".
> >
> >>
> Thanks, John. Thing is, if you slow the tape down, you have to speed it back up to keep sync. This is just too complex a task to be handled as you describe. Besides, it was issued on CD, with an extended ending (on my site), pure (cleaner) mono. Some say, this "stereo rendition" has yet to be released on CD; had the 45. Not saying it sounds(ed) fantastic, this phased version always sounded crude. Just seems someone discovered something clever creating it, and no one was able to (later) replicate it.
>

** Might be an example of the "Kendrick" method - involving two recorders, one tape and a screwdriver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanging



..... Phil

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:37:05 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 20/08/2016 01:00, JackA wrote:
> > > While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI
> > >
> > The usual method at the time involved two synchronised tape recorders
> > and a finger on the flange of the feed reel, hence the common name for
> > the effect at the time of "flanging".
> >
> > The band are lipsyncing to a playback track, not performing live,and the
> > abysmal sound quality is due to the number of generations between the
> > performance and Youbend, not forgetting Youbend's
> > fantastic data compression system.
> > --
> > Tciao for Now!
> >
> > John.
>
> Thanks, John. Thing is, if you slow the tape down, you have to speed it back up to keep sync. This is just too complex a task to be handled as you describe. Besides, it was issued on CD, with an extended ending (on my site), pure (cleaner) mono. Some say, this "stereo rendition" has yet to be released on CD; had the 45. Not saying it sounds(ed) fantastic, this phased version always sounded crude. Just seems someone discovered something clever creating it, and no one was able to (later) replicate it.
>
> Jack

No need to speed a tape up. Just flange the other tape...

Bob

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2016 09:12, JackA wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:37:05 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 20/08/2016 01:00, JackA wrote:
>>> While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI
>>>
>> The usual method at the time involved two synchronised tape recorders
>> and a finger on the flange of the feed reel, hence the common name for
>> the effect at the time of "flanging".
>>
>> The band are lipsyncing to a playback track, not performing live,and the
>> abysmal sound quality is due to the number of generations between the
>> performance and Youbend, not forgetting Youbend's
>> fantastic data compression system.
>> --
>> Tciao for Now!
>>
>> John.
>
> Thanks, John. Thing is, if you slow the tape down, you have to speed it back up to keep sync. This is just too complex a task to be handled as you describe. Besides, it was issued on CD, with an extended ending (on my site), pure (cleaner) mono. Some say, this "stereo rendition" has yet to be released on CD; had the 45. Not saying it sounds(ed) fantastic, this phased version always sounded crude. Just seems someone discovered something clever creating it, and no one was able to (later) replicate it.
>
> Jack
>
Complex or not, it was the way it was done, and for a few notes, it
worked very well. The slowed tape is only a few milliseconds at most
behind the other one, and that little delay disappears into the reverb,
especially if it's faded down when the effect's not wanted.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 20/08/2016 11:24 PM, wrote:
> Nil wrote: "That sounds like absolute ****. "
>
> It still suffices to get the point across.
>

Actually one has to listen for a bit to figure out it it was just a
really crappy recording, Youtube audio artifacts, or actually phasing
and/or flanging.


Year probably a little early for BBD's. NAd far better recording was
'possible' then.

geoff

[geoff]

On 20/08/2016 8:12 PM, JackA wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:37:05 AM UTC-4, John Williamson
> wrote:
>> On 20/08/2016 01:00, JackA wrote:
>>> While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was
>>> done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some
>>> technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI
>>>
>> The usual method at the time involved two synchronised tape
>> recorders and a finger on the flange of the feed reel, hence the
>> common name for the effect at the time of "flanging".
>>
>> The band are lipsyncing to a playback track, not performing
>> live,and the abysmal sound quality is due to the number of
>> generations between the performance and Youbend, not forgetting
>> Youbend's fantastic data compression system. -- Tciao for Now!
>>
>> John.
>
> Thanks, John. Thing is, if you slow the tape down, you have to speed
> it back up to keep sync. This is just too complex a task to be
> handled as you describe.

Um, do you really know less than nothing ?

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
John Williamson > wrote:
>On 20/08/2016 09:12, JackA wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:37:05 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>>> On 20/08/2016 01:00, JackA wrote:
>>>> While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI

I will confirm that this is conventional flanging done with two tape machines.
Very popular back in the sixties when the philosophy of playing studio
equipment as instruments in realtime was more popular than it is now.

A lot of different people claim to have invented the technique... I think it
is one of those things that is sufficiently obvious and the times were ready
for it that a number of people figured it out at the same time independently.

It only takes a very light touch with the finger on an AG-440.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 20/08/2016 11:24 PM, wrote:
>> Nil wrote: "That sounds like absolute ****. "
>>
>> It still suffices to get the point across.
>
>Actually one has to listen for a bit to figure out it it was just a
>really crappy recording, Youtube audio artifacts, or actually phasing
>and/or flanging.

There is a much better quality recording of it on one of the Nuggets
compilations back in the seventies.

>Year probably a little early for BBD's. NAd far better recording was
>'possible' then.

The BBD "flanging" sounds grainier but is more easily controlled. The
difference is pretty clear on a good quality recording, probably not on
Youtube or some crappy mp3.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2016 14:20, geoff wrote:
> On 20/08/2016 8:12 PM, JackA wrote:

>> Thanks, John. Thing is, if you slow the tape down, you have to speed
>> it back up to keep sync. This is just too complex a task to be
>> handled as you describe.
>
> Um, do you really know less than nothing ?
>
I always thought that was impossible, but JackAss keeps trying prove me
wrong. :-)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 20 Aug 2016, John Williamson > wrote
in rec.audio.pro:

> On 20/08/2016 07:12, Nil wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2016, JackA > wrote in
>> rec.audio.pro:
>>
>>> While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was
>>> done. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some
>>> technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI
>>
>> That sounds like absolute ****.
>>
> Typical Youtube sound quality.

It's worse than just that. It's a mono recording that's been processed
by some crappy consumer software to make a crappy fake stereo effect,
with extra crappy digital flanger and reverb effects applied. Plus the
typical Youtube artifacts to ruin it even more.

That JackAss thinks this is "impressive" tells us all just how
seriously we can take any of its opinions.

[JackA]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 8:41:33 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 4:12:24 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 2:37:05 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> > > On 20/08/2016 01:00, JackA wrote:
> > > > While it isn't "true" stereo, it is impressive, however it was done.. Fits the mold of, "Psychotic". Someone discovered some technique. Any guesses welcome!!....
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6cQdH6bRI
> > > >
> > > The usual method at the time involved two synchronised tape recorders
> > > and a finger on the flange of the feed reel, hence the common name for
> > > the effect at the time of "flanging".
> > >
> > > The band are lipsyncing to a playback track, not performing live,and the
> > > abysmal sound quality is due to the number of generations between the
> > > performance and Youbend, not forgetting Youbend's
> > > fantastic data compression system.
> > > --
> > > Tciao for Now!
> > >
> > > John.
> >
> > Thanks, John. Thing is, if you slow the tape down, you have to speed it back up to keep sync. This is just too complex a task to be handled as you describe. Besides, it was issued on CD, with an extended ending (on my site), pure (cleaner) mono. Some say, this "stereo rendition" has yet to be released on CD; had the 45. Not saying it sounds(ed) fantastic, this phased version always sounded crude. Just seems someone discovered something clever creating it, and no one was able to (later) replicate it.
> >
> > Jack
>
> No need to speed a tape up. Just flange the other tape...
>
> Bob

Thanks, Phil; Thanks, Bob!! Even though this phasing occurs during the bridges, it just sounds too well controlled to be mere pressure on tape reel(s)..

Jack

[JackA]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:18:45 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 20/08/2016 11:24 PM, wrote:
> > Nil wrote: "That sounds like absolute ****. "
> >
> > It still suffices to get the point across.
> >
>
> Actually one has to listen for a bit to figure out it it was just a
> really crappy recording

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/psychoticreaction.mp3

Jack

[JackA]

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 11:42:58 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 20/08/2016 14:20, geoff wrote:
> > On 20/08/2016 8:12 PM, JackA wrote:
>
> >> Thanks, John. Thing is, if you slow the tape down, you have to speed
> >> it back up to keep sync. This is just too complex a task to be
> >> handled as you describe.
> >
> > Um, do you really know less than nothing ?
> >
> I always thought that was impossible, but JackAss keeps trying prove me
> wrong. :-)

Because, as I figured, you can't tell me what actually happened. And, Scott, it was very popular in the 60s? Ha!

I'm guessing some electrical motor speed control, not friction!

Thanks, anyway!

Jack


>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/21/2016 7:49 PM, JackA wrote:

> I'm guessing some electrical motor speed control, not friction!

You seem to doubt that engineers from the 50s and 60s didn't have tools
and skills as good as today's so their work must be inferior. That's
very wrong. Great engineers, clever engineers, great recordings.

And, yes, flanging was done with finger pressure on a reel flange.
That's where the term came from. Go get yourself a couple of Ampex
AG-440s and try it some time. You can hear for yourself how well it works.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:36:05 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 8/21/2016 7:49 PM, JackA wrote:
>
> > I'm guessing some electrical motor speed control, not friction!
>
> You seem to doubt that engineers from the 50s and 60s didn't have tools
> and skills as good as today's so their work must be inferior. That's
> very wrong. Great engineers, clever engineers, great recordings.

Where did they all go?!
>
> And, yes, flanging was done with finger pressure on a reel flange.
> That's where the term came from. Go get yourself a couple of Ampex
> AG-440s and try it some time. You can hear for yourself how well it works.

Just doesn't fit the mold, Mike! Maybe someone developed a VFD.


Jack

>
>
>
> --
>
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 22/08/2016 02:59, JackA wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:36:05 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 8/21/2016 7:49 PM, JackA wrote:
>>
>>> I'm guessing some electrical motor speed control, not friction!
>>
>> You seem to doubt that engineers from the 50s and 60s didn't have tools
>> and skills as good as today's so their work must be inferior. That's
>> very wrong. Great engineers, clever engineers, great recordings.
>
> Where did they all go?!

Most of them are still about, producing great recordings using modern
tools with the old ones revisited when they produce the best results.
>>
>> And, yes, flanging was done with finger pressure on a reel flange.
>> That's where the term came from. Go get yourself a couple of Ampex
>> AG-440s and try it some time. You can hear for yourself how well it works.
>
> Just doesn't fit the mold, Mike! Maybe someone developed a VFD.
>
Nope, a carefully applied finger was all that you needed.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 22/08/2016 00:49, JackA wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 11:42:58 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 20/08/2016 14:20, geoff wrote:
>>> Um, do you really know less than nothing ?
>>>
>> I always thought that was impossible, but JackAss keeps trying prove me
>> wrong. :-)
>
> Because, as I figured, you can't tell me what actually happened. And, Scott, it was very popular in the 60s? Ha!
>
The way I described it was the way it was done. If you don't believe me,
then feel free to carry on being ignorant. That, we can help with.

Unfortunately, there is no easy cure for stupidity.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 8/21/2016 7:49 PM, JackA wrote:

>> I'm guessing some electrical motor speed control, not friction!

>You seem to doubt that engineers from the 50s and 60s didn't have tools
>and skills as good as today's so their work must be inferior. That's
>very wrong. Great engineers, clever engineers, great recordings.

>And, yes, flanging was done with finger pressure on a reel flange.
>That's where the term came from. Go get yourself a couple of Ampex
>AG-440s and try it some time. You can hear for yourself how well it works.

Indeed. On occasion I flanged an MM1000, 440B and 440C. Not possible with an ATR
(but by then, not really needed). :) The MXR effects boxes did a passible imitation,
though not quite as "rich" sounding as the real thing.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

>On 8/21/2016 7:49 PM, JackA wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing some electrical motor speed control, not friction!
>
>You seem to doubt that engineers from the 50s and 60s didn't have tools
>and skills as good as today's so their work must be inferior. That's
>very wrong. Great engineers, clever engineers, great recordings.
>
>And, yes, flanging was done with finger pressure on a reel flange.
>That's where the term came from. Go get yourself a couple of Ampex
>AG-440s and try it some time. You can hear for yourself how well it works.

Even better to do it with a 440 and a multitrack machine... dub the guitar
track from the master to the 440, then dub it back to the 440 while listening
to the sum. This gives you a very controllable effect; you can do very fine
flanges just on trills.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Rick Ruskin > wrote:
>On 22 Aug 2016 11:45:28 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>On 8/21/2016 7:49 PM, JackA wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm guessing some electrical motor speed control, not friction!
>>>
>>>You seem to doubt that engineers from the 50s and 60s didn't have tools
>>>and skills as good as today's so their work must be inferior. That's
>>>very wrong. Great engineers, clever engineers, great recordings.
>>>
>>>And, yes, flanging was done with finger pressure on a reel flange.
>>>That's where the term came from. Go get yourself a couple of Ampex
>>>AG-440s and try it some time. You can hear for yourself how well it works.
>>
>>Even better to do it with a 440 and a multitrack machine... dub the guitar
>>track from the master to the 440, then dub it back to the 440 while listening
>>to the sum. This gives you a very controllable effect; you can do very fine
>>flanges just on trills.
>>--scott
>
>Don't you mean "from" the 440?

Err, yes.

Sorry, I am back from an audio-for-video gig in Kansas City and have not
really slept much.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

the earliest song __that I remember___ to use flanging:

The Big Hurt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlE6eHEENg4

M

[JackA]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:52:49 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 22/08/2016 00:49, JackA wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 11:42:58 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 20/08/2016 14:20, geoff wrote:
> >>> Um, do you really know less than nothing ?
> >>>
> >> I always thought that was impossible, but JackAss keeps trying prove me
> >> wrong. :-)
> >
> > Because, as I figured, you can't tell me what actually happened. And, Scott, it was very popular in the 60s? Ha!
> >
> The way I described it was the way it was done. If you don't believe me,
> then feel free to carry on being ignorant. That, we can help with.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no easy cure for stupidity.

Nonsense!

Jack

>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[JackA]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 3:59:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> the earliest song __that I remember___ to use flanging:
>
> The Big Hurt
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlE6eHEENg4
>
> M

Guess that alone tells me, don't look for it in stereo. Nice song!!


Jack