| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Catdaddy wrote in message
... EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce that record think that a surround sound version can be produced sometime in the future. It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things were so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals. In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Catdaddy wrote in message
... EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce that record think that a surround sound version can be produced sometime in the future. It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things were so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals. In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Catdaddy wrote in message
... EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce that record think that a surround sound version can be produced sometime in the future. It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things were so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals. In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote: I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.) |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote: I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.) |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote: I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.) |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Olhsson wrote: In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version. Me too (both LP's). There has never been an official CD. Of course, some clown made bootlegs. There are also bootlegs of the US albums, cheesy reverb and all. I have a British Mono SPLHCB LP that sounds excellent, and I bought a mono in the '60's (in the US), because it was a dollar cheaper than the stereo! |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Olhsson wrote: In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version. Me too (both LP's). There has never been an official CD. Of course, some clown made bootlegs. There are also bootlegs of the US albums, cheesy reverb and all. I have a British Mono SPLHCB LP that sounds excellent, and I bought a mono in the '60's (in the US), because it was a dollar cheaper than the stereo! |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Olhsson wrote: In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version. Me too (both LP's). There has never been an official CD. Of course, some clown made bootlegs. There are also bootlegs of the US albums, cheesy reverb and all. I have a British Mono SPLHCB LP that sounds excellent, and I bought a mono in the '60's (in the US), because it was a dollar cheaper than the stereo! |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Sep 2004 18:04:15 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote: In article hG_4d.109152$D%.19208@attbi_s51 writes: I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the future". I this case, it's about duping the public into buying "the pasture." --------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^ Ha Ha! - very good! :-) |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Sep 2004 18:04:15 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote: In article hG_4d.109152$D%.19208@attbi_s51 writes: I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the future". I this case, it's about duping the public into buying "the pasture." --------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^ Ha Ha! - very good! :-) |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow anyone. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes Kansas as a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing. The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but that's not (apparently) the way the film was made. There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think of Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be practical with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow anyone. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes Kansas as a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing. The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but that's not (apparently) the way the film was made. There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think of Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be practical with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow anyone. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes Kansas as a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing. The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but that's not (apparently) the way the film was made. There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think of Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be practical with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Cooper" wrote in message
... "Ricky W. Hunt" wrote: I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.) Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first? |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Cooper" wrote in message
... "Ricky W. Hunt" wrote: I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.) Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first? |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Cooper" wrote in message
... "Ricky W. Hunt" wrote: I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.) Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first? |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow anyone. Maybe it was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor or one of those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost sure I read that. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes Kansas as a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing. I had only read part of the book and really young kid and have no memory of it whatsoever. Regardless it was a stunning metaphor to me visually. The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but that's not (apparently) the way the film was made. There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think of Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be practical with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc. Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason. Thanks for the info. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow anyone. Maybe it was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor or one of those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost sure I read that. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes Kansas as a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing. I had only read part of the book and really young kid and have no memory of it whatsoever. Regardless it was a stunning metaphor to me visually. The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but that's not (apparently) the way the film was made. There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think of Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be practical with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc. Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason. Thanks for the info. |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was done on purpose to "wow" the audience. It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow anyone. Maybe it was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor or one of those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost sure I read that. But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor. It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes Kansas as a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing. I had only read part of the book and really young kid and have no memory of it whatsoever. Regardless it was a stunning metaphor to me visually. The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but that's not (apparently) the way the film was made. There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think of Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be practical with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc. Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason. Thanks for the info. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote: Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.) Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first? As a viewer, I'd say "wow" first, and "metaphor" after repeated viewings. Not sure what they thought some 60 years ago, making it. I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote: Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.) Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first? As a viewer, I'd say "wow" first, and "metaphor" after repeated viewings. Not sure what they thought some 60 years ago, making it. I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote: Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.) Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first? As a viewer, I'd say "wow" first, and "metaphor" after repeated viewings. Not sure what they thought some 60 years ago, making it. I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:55:39 -0400, EggHd wrote
(in article ): I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of classic movies like Gone With The Wind. Turner already colorized many old B&W movies. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" I know. That's not 3D though. Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:55:39 -0400, EggHd wrote
(in article ): I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of classic movies like Gone With The Wind. Turner already colorized many old B&W movies. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" I know. That's not 3D though. Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
I remember the first CD releases of Beatles stuff.
It scared the **** out of me and I couldn't listen. Anyway, I can play that stuff in my head, where I know it still sound good. Tom "Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ... Catdaddy wrote in message ... EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce that record think that a surround sound version can be produced sometime in the future. It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things were so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals. In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
I remember the first CD releases of Beatles stuff.
It scared the **** out of me and I couldn't listen. Anyway, I can play that stuff in my head, where I know it still sound good. Tom "Bob Olhsson" wrote in message ... Catdaddy wrote in message ... EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce that record think that a surround sound version can be produced sometime in the future. It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things were so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals. In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe it [Oz] was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor
or one of those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost sure I read that. No. Two-strip Technicolor was in use since the '20s, mostly for "inserts" in B&W films ("Ben-Hur," "Phantom of the Opera"). Not many feature-length films in two-strip Technicolor were made, "The Black Pirate" (silent) and "Mystery of the Wax Museum" (sound) being exceptions. The first commercial three-strip Technicolor film was Disney's "Flowers and Trees" (1933?). The first feature-length three-strip Technicolor film was "Becky Sharp" (1935). Live-action three-strip Technicolor used a camera with three separate strips of film -- red, green, blue -- running through it. Several of these films -- notably "The Adventures of Robin Hood," "Meet Me in St. Louis," and "Singin' in the Rain" are available in DVD versions where the three original camera negatives (rather than an interpositive or print) were individually scanned, then electronically combined. The result is "Technicolor to the tenth power." You have never, ever seen a color movie like this. Your eyeballs will fall out. Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason. Thanks for the info. You're welcome. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe it [Oz] was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor
or one of those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost sure I read that. No. Two-strip Technicolor was in use since the '20s, mostly for "inserts" in B&W films ("Ben-Hur," "Phantom of the Opera"). Not many feature-length films in two-strip Technicolor were made, "The Black Pirate" (silent) and "Mystery of the Wax Museum" (sound) being exceptions. The first commercial three-strip Technicolor film was Disney's "Flowers and Trees" (1933?). The first feature-length three-strip Technicolor film was "Becky Sharp" (1935). Live-action three-strip Technicolor used a camera with three separate strips of film -- red, green, blue -- running through it. Several of these films -- notably "The Adventures of Robin Hood," "Meet Me in St. Louis," and "Singin' in the Rain" are available in DVD versions where the three original camera negatives (rather than an interpositive or print) were individually scanned, then electronically combined. The result is "Technicolor to the tenth power." You have never, ever seen a color movie like this. Your eyeballs will fall out. Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason. Thanks for the info. You're welcome. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. BRBR
Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar. Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker. -R |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. BRBR
Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar. Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker. -R |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
R Krizman wrote: I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. BRBR Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar. Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker. Thank you. I will do that. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
R Krizman wrote: I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. BRBR Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar. Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker. Thank you. I will do that. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar.
Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker. Thank you. I will do that. And pre-roll a significant quantity of doobies, and get them nicely lined up on the coffee table, before you start rolling the picture. Scott Fraser |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar.
Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker. Thank you. I will do that. And pre-roll a significant quantity of doobies, and get them nicely lined up on the coffee table, before you start rolling the picture. Scott Fraser |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
starwars wrote:
|--scott | (who thinks Pet Sounds is better in mono too) And Sgt. Peppers sounds better in mono, too! Surrond Sound is too gimmicky (Quad). It doesn't have to be. It's possible, if you play well, to use surround sound to make recordings that have a more realistic sense of space, instead of ping-ponging trash. Unfortunately, more realistic recordings don't seem to be what the market wants. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
| Doppler Distortion - Fact or Fiction | Pro Audio | |||
| Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
