John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier

Status
Not open for further replies.
john curl said:
The best 'Grateful Dead' record in my opinion is 'Live Dead' that was recorded with an open loop vacuum tube mixer and an MM-1000 16 channel master recorder back in 1969-1970. When it is played back properly, I have actually gotten ' mental flashbacks' of a live performance. Unfortunately, the master tapes that I personally recorded were destroyed in the firestorm here in 1991.


I heard "LIve Dead" today. It`s on mp3 but WOW!!!
 
What you heard is like looking at a snapshot or magazine photo of a painting at the Louvre. You should hear a 'real' audio playback, sometime.
Of course, many performances and recordings are not that well recorded, BECAUSE they regard audio playback as MP-3 level only. This is a 'chicken or egg' problem that has been put up to me for the last 40 years at least. You know, why bother making a good recording, if it is going to be played back with MP-3 level equipment? Or why make better than MP-3 equipment, when the recordings are so compromised?
The makers of the 'Live Dead' recording were making the most serious attempt possible at the time, no expense spared, to create a facsimile of an actual live performance. Their previous attempts had failed to do this. Later attempts tend to be more compromised than this, as well.
 
Moderator
Joined 2003
Paid Member
I read the bass was tweaked to play quadraphonic.
The final disc was presumably stereo but what about the master tapes?

I'd love to hear a good copy of this album. I was only able to listen to small pieces on allmusic.com in a much worse format than the average MP3 but still it did sound great.

Guys, let me know if I should split this interesting discussion into a new thread.

/Hugo
 
Hmmm, it's been a while since I pulled out the original release vinyl. Time for another listen.

Talking with a music director at work I realized recent audio production is aiming for a live sound, but the sound of live reproduction. One of the latest Nelly releases for example is obviously striving to recreate the sound of a trunk full of woofers on overload. I also understand there's a hot market now for old FM processors to capture that live 'crushed to death' sound directly to disc. Reproduction has become the new live, obvious in hindsight since so few artists are ever heard unamplified anymore.
 
PMA said:
Only unamplified music is a measure of comparison. No rock bands with tons of distortions through Marshall stuff.

Not true. ;)

A certain guitarist, well known for his distorted tones, once held an audition in his studio for new monitors - he was listening for ones that precisely reproduced the overtones and breakup of "his" sound. I suspect that is a task just as demanding as reproducing, say, a violin.
 
PMA said:
This a good and valid comment. Only unamplified music is a measure of comparison. No rock bands with tons of distortions through Marshall stuff.

The sound of the music, the crowd, the room all make for a good live recording; documents of a time that my kids can never experience. Try The Who Live at Leeds, Magic Bus; Johnny Winter And Live, It's My Own Fault; Ten Years After, Help Me; Neil Young Live at Massey Hall, most of (forget the crowd sounds they've been "enhanced". Just a couple of live vinyl releases off the top of my head. Warm up the system and play them loud. All of these have limitations but all have a live quality and impact that's interesting.

Hopefully over the weekend I can pull out Live Dead and give it a fresh listen.

Mike.
 
Unfortunately, you people speculate in ignorance. The original recording is 16 track 15ips analog. NO Dolby. The mix-down can be anything. The musical instruments have their own amps, usually McIntosh tube amps. You people just don't know what you are criticiising. Please excuse me, but could you make your criticisms more informed?
 
diyAudio Editor
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Again with the "You People" John Who are you criticiising about criticiising?
Could you be more specific? The only possible speculation is Hugo's and it doesn't seem to be a criticiisism. More a question based on what he had read. Now you have a chance to answer a question and you assume it is criticiising (your spelling) and you get on your high horse. Please at least try to be civil here..

:captain:
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi John,
The original recording is 16 track 15ips analog. NO Dolby.
That pretty much describes a market segment I am very familiar with. I have a half track stereo 15 ips new in it's box sitting in my basement. Most studios were using the 16 track format in 1/2". Fostex in 1/4" (eeuuwww) and those early tape burners could be found in 2". At least the head bumps are not way up in the midrange like a 30 ips machine. Studer does a very good job of EQing them out.
The musical instruments have their own amps, usually McIntosh tube amps.
Possibly in your studio of choice, but that is hardly normal. Air conditioning is already pushed to the max with the board and automation computer. Never mind a pair of 24 track machines and a couple mastering machines and all that outboard gear. Tube amps would have to be in an amp room away from the control room (same with board power supplies and automation computers). They still need air conditioning. Most of my experience comes from "The MetalWorks" studio and many smaller ones around southern Ontario. Even some nice jingle studios.

However, I do understand the last point you made. Rush production with minimal gear and no maintenance. Did you know some "masters" were used right off a basement DAT tape? What a complete rip off to the buying public.

Last point. If no or little information is given, then a person can only assume things in a framework that they are familiar with. You are not exactly giving out a lot of information (and that's fine), but to degrade people for this situation is not really fair.

Anyway, please 'splain away sir!

-Chris
 
2 inch wide tape, 16 tracks. I worked dozens of live concerts, and knew what the music could sound like live. I was asked a specific question, about the Grateful Dead, and I answered it. I use that particular vinyl record, because it is so 'lifelike' when reproduced properly. I have other audio references, but not 'Grateful Dead' references.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi John,
Right. Ampex. I was thinking Sculley or MCI for some reason.

Duh, you worked at Ampex. <slaps side of head>

The cost of tape has got to hurt these days. Are you transferring to good stock? The MetalWorks made a tape baker to fix the binder. It was good for one go. They ended up renting it a fair amount.

-Chris

Edit: Pinch rollers and belts. Have you a good supply for rubber parts? I no longer deal with these, so I have no more worries.
 
Chris, all that I am hoping for is to be able to answer a question made to me that I know something about, without a lot of negative crosstalk, either potentially demeaning my recording choice, or uninformed projections on how the recording was made. That is all that I am trying to do, not personally insult or annoy anyone else.
 
Al,

I meant classical instruments, chamber orchestra, philharmony orchestra, choir.

Rock band is fine, but never a sound reference for me. Electrical guitar - one never knows what is the "proper" sound. Violin, cello, horns, oboe, english horn? Just a different case. Then you go to modern instruments and original historical instruments. You know it from live performance, you know they sound different. You have a DG recording from the same hall with same orchestra, and probably even same day you were there. That is how I get my sound references.
 
This morning i have listened to my almost forgotten GD "Live/Dead" mint LP.Sound quality is really something special, with good stereo,dynamic percussion and lifelike vocals.Double live GD album simply called "Grateful Dead"is also outstanding recording made probably with the same equipment.
But the best recording i have ever heard dated from 1961! It is a British budget C5 label 1988 LP reissue of Wakey Wakey!! The Billy Cotton Band Show, radio show recorded live. Sound quality is better than any purist audiophile recordings incl. direct to disc, direct to mixing console etc."Country Music Hootenanny"LP of the same vintage reissued by See For Miles Records is almost as good.
Some French artists live recordings from 60-s are outstanding, better than anything modern.
The point is comparison between old and modern recording equipment.
Above mentioned recordings were made on tube/valve tape recorders with limited(up to 15 KHz) response, microphones were with heavier membranes and less sensitive. Cables,connectors , switches etc were of inferior quality. But resulting sound is of reference quality.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi John,
Chris, all that I am hoping for is to be able to answer a question made to me that I know something about, without a lot of negative crosstalk, either potentially demeaning my recording choice, or uninformed projections on how the recording was made. That is all that I am trying to do, not personally insult or annoy anyone else.
I understand that. Sometimes this is very difficult to achieve when too much is read into what you are saying by other people. The problem of the written word.
I find that human female voice with a live band is best.
Myself included. Female vocals can be brutal when listening to loudspeakers too. Live bands that are not too compressed are a good indicator. Now, how much compression? That's a hard one to answer.

-Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.