Ralph....
Before digital recordings, how were tapes so seamlessly edited?
Printable View
Ralph....
Before digital recordings, how were tapes so seamlessly edited?
Sharp razor blades and know how. I used to say my brother could edit out a vowel if need be.
West,
After thinking about it, I realized I really didn't answer your very good question.
Here is how it worked:
The tape would be stopped at the point where editing was needed.
The engineer would hold both reels and gently move them forward and back just a bit. A procedure known as "rocking"
He would listen to the strange sounds coming from this procedure until he heard the spot needing the edit.
Once that spot was designated, he would take a pen, usually a magic marker type and put a mark directly where the tape was at the top of the record head.
This was done at the front and back parts of the tape to be edited.
The tape was then pulled off the heads and placed in an editing block. Front and back were cut at the marks and the two remaining pieces were spliced together with editing tape.
The tape was ready for playback and if all was done correctly, you would never hear the splice point.
Quite an art to say the least.
I remember Russ telling me of his first experiences with digital editing and how very easy it was compared to old school editing.
Hope this was understandable, West.
And, you had to cut at an angle to make it sound more transparent. hence, the term "crossfade" used in digital editing. The faster the tape speed, the better the result.
I never sliced a finger, but my problem with tape editing is that I always had problems getting the splicing tape on just right.
Digital editing is such a breeze. One can do things that were impossible in the analog days. But, when you get right down to it, digital editing also takes a lot of skill.
Absolutely correct, Soulster. The splicing blocks had the proper angle grooved in. All one needed to do was run the blade through the slot to get the correct angle for splicing. And Soulster tells it like it is...getting the splicing tape on just right took a little practice.
.....and making sure you didn't immediately lose or damage the section you cut out, just in case the 'edit' you had made didn't sound right. If so you had to put it back and make another cut in a slightly different position - somethimes not possible [[or easy) if your first cut was very very close to where it really should have been. Also there was the danger of putting the tape section back in the wrong way round...so that the edited length plays the sound backwards!
Some engineers were wise to create a 1:1 copy and cut that instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by alanh
Interesting that this question should come up.
I was watching part of a documentary on BBC4 the other day about the LA studio 'Sound City', and it showed how an edit was done on analogue tape in the old days [[exactly as Ralph describes), and then how it's done today in a DAW.
I found some videos that show the technique.
Here's the first one : -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkEf...E4RXII1IB18ahg
Cheers
Paul
And the second on a multitrack studio machine : -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kggnYzNoF_8
Cheers
Paul
I have read where some anal engineers would wear gloves so as not to get skin oil on the tape to prevent dropouts. And, i've read where some will take the blade and carefully trim the sides of the tape where the finished edit is to ensure that the sticky part did not make contact with the heads or rollers.
Ooowee, what interesting responses. I've always felt that there was far more to the Motown Sound than just what I actually heard on a disc.
Ralph, your second post was exactly the information I was interested to know. Thanks, too, to Soulster, Alanh and Bradburger. Keep it coming...
After all these years, you probably might be inclined to take it a bit for granted [['been there, done that') but the technical side is very interesting, particularly to people like me, who may relate it back to favourites from the finished product. [[I was thinking of the edit on Martha's "I'm Ready For Love" when the question came up in my mind...)
Technical stuff about how recordings are created always interest me more. I'd rather talk and read about that than the usual fan stuff. I also like seeing pictures of the tape boxes and the engineers notes about EQ, level adjustments, tape speed, use of Dolby, ect. Why? It tells me more about the music.
OK, a bit more finer detail from me. Soulster's right about the gloves, although that is very extreme. But the reasoning is indeed not getting greasy finger marks on the tape surface. It was so important to put the splicing tape on in line with the tape and not have it even a little 'diagonally off'. Any protruding edge of the splicing tape could catch on the guides of the tape machine and momenarilly affect the speed of the tape as it passed the record and play heads. That speed change could result in a sound blip or slurr. Protruding splicing tape could also transefer some of the 'glue' onto the guides or tape heads, which would attract a build up of dirt or dust from the tape surface. Dirt on the heads could produce a muffled sound reducing the higher fequencies. [[That's why you were always encouraged to keep tape heads clean using cotton buds and meths or a specially made fluid.)
The other important thing when editing was to always use a sharp razor blade. A blunt blade could produce a ragged cut and make it harder to get a tight joint between the two bits of tape. A ragged joint could produce an unwanted bump noise on the playback. You could re-cut the edges with a new blade, but sometimes, with a really difficult edit, cutting away even a very small slither of extra tape could detrimentally affect the sound you wanted.
There was also the danger of accidentally using a blade that had become magnetised. If you used one it would then magnetise the edge area of the tape you'd cut, which when played back would produce a bump or click type noise. [[Bear in mind that tape was a coating of ferric [iron] oxide on a 'plastic' backing. Recording worked by the tape heads transforming the sound you wanted into magnetic energy and magnetising the ferric particles on the tape. A magentised blade would introduce another unwanted type of magnetic energy.)
It makes digital editing these days seem so easy. If you get it wrong, just click 'undo'!!
Precisely! I did mention that.Quote:
Originally Posted by alanh
Again, correct! And, for examples of the extremes again, i've heard of recording engineers who would clean and demagnetize the heads before each pass! And, there is always the danger of running a tape too many times, usually in tracking, where the oxide can literally come off the tape. This actually happened while the Fleetwood Mac album "Rumours" was being recorded. Thank god they had a backup with the basic tracks on it.Quote:
Protruding splicing tape could also transefer some of the 'glue' onto the guides or tape heads, which would attract a build up of dirt or dust from the tape surface. Dirt on the heads could produce a muffled sound reducing the higher fequencies. [[That's why you were always encouraged to keep tape heads clean using cotton buds and meths or a specially made fluid.)
Right. The act of recording is that the record head, an low-power electromagnet, placed the magnetic particles into a certain direction on the tape with varying intensities. If you place a magnet, or other charged object too near the tape, it would change the properties of the particles, and that would cause an erasure or adverse sound.Quote:
There was also the danger of accidentally using a blade that had become magnetised. If you used one it would then magnetise the edge area of the tape you'd cut, which when played back would produce a bump or click type noise. [[Bear in mind that tape was a coating of ferric [iron] oxide on a 'plastic' backing. Recording worked by the tape heads transforming the sound you wanted into magnetic energy and magnetising the ferric particles on the tape. A magentised blade would introduce another unwanted type of magnetic energy.)
Yes, we need much more of this and less of the Supremes. Not just recording, but the arrangements, the process of writing, producing, the Funks [[or other studio band) playing, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Thomas,
I'm all for that. I have to tell you guys, this thread has been a breath of fresh air for me. Anything I can do to offer information, I am more than happy to do. This absolutely blows away any Supremes thread and the hissy fits that emanate, and is more in the spirit of what Soulful Detroit is all about.
Ralph, I have some more topics noted.....but, Thomas [[or anyone else), if you'd like to start a new thread, [[next one would be 'Ask Ralph : # 3'........), on a different topic which particularly interests you, please go right ahead.
As long as each thread is introduced with the next consecutive number, they can each have a separate identity, be viewed separately or collectively, and could make a neat little series, particularly for the archive.
Great idea, West.
I have to agree Ralph.Quote:
Originally Posted by ralpht
After all, these sort of topics used to be the main point of focus on the forum at one time, with some great input from those who were involved with Motown .
I must admit, another thread on what gowns or outfits the Supremes wore on whatever TV show or performance isn't exactly of interest, or indeed importance to me. [[Nor is the argument and flaming that usually follows such a thread!)
Keep asking them questions WGB! :)
Cheers
Paul
Paul,
From my perspective, it is nice to participate, rather than police.... That gets old. I made some crack about if I had my way I'd ban Supreme threads. Of course that couldn't happen, but it had me thinking. However, that would be insulting to the Supremes that still exist and I couldn't do that to those talented women. Too bad some of their fans aren't a little more respectful.
Ralph,
I'm glad you have enjoyed this thread [[I know I did) and that you were able to participate in , rather than police it!
As you say, these kind of threads are in the spirit of what SD is about, and long may they continue.
I often wonder if we have lost some of the posters who used to be regulars over the years, due to some of those threads that turned volatile, or just didn't interest them, or at worst, personal attacks on them by other members because of their opinions on a particular subject.
That said, it's always amazing to look back at the old archived threads, and see what a treasure trove of information this place was [[and still is).
SD may have changed over the years, but it's still a great place to be if you are interested in Motown and the other Detroit labels, and soul music in general.
Cheers
Paul
Very interesting thread. I'm learning something new everyday regarding the folks in the background at Motown. Liking the format too, WGB.
Hopefully one day soon, I'll be able to jump into the conversation[[s).
What a breath of fresh air, WGB! Thanks.
Tyrone
I'm with you, Paul, Ralph, Tyrone, and Westgrand. We just need more threads like this, and more new members who find this place who are interested in the technical side of things.
I'm all for talking about how The Supremes were miked, recorded, mixed, and mastered, but I have zero interest in gowns and the stupid gossip.
Those other topics that run rampant here can bring out the worst in people. I say let those Supremes/Ross/Wilson fanatics find some other forum to do their cat-fights in.
Soulster,
They're beating me up pretty good on the main forum.
This thread is dedicated to creativity and art.
Some [[at least) of those other people, Ralph, are hecklers. They have their own story, of course, but they also just want to spread their unhappiness around. An unhappiness which almost certainly has nothing to do with this forum, and no place here.
I've yet to meet a focused, truly creative person who has time to think like that, let alone act like it.
Was just thinking about the context of this thread, and how edits would become required in the first instance.
From the producer- ?
I would say that editing is just a part of the process. The idea is to make the best recording possible, and editing helps achieve that.
My experiences with editing are somewhat limited. When I was working for Pye, I assisted in editing the Michael Henderson track Wide Receiver for British release, as well as one or two of B.T. Express’ later UK singles on Calibre. I always marvelled at the gentle rocking back and forth the engineer did, trying to find the exact right spot to cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Wouldn't some of the quality [[of the new one) be lost when copied?Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Just a tad. If you copy the tape backwards, which is normal procedure, you preserve the transients. Another thing to preserve quality is to make a 30 ips copy with no Dolby.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas96
Not exactly sure when it happened, Soulster, but 30ips masters became normal and suggested.
So, would that be the more tape used, the better the sound quality?
Yes, in its most simple sense, the tape moves quickly over the heads and this allows the sound to "breathe" and not distort.
And reel-to-reel has much better sound quality than cassette?
It is the best sound quality of all recording mediums by a long shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by westgrandboulevard
The 12" mix of the one single that I co-produced was put together by splicing together the best parts of several runs through of the track with an engineer who specialised in reggae "versions". I spent a lot of time with the producer in his attic studio picking through these multiple "on the fly" mixes and agreeing on the best bits and the order in which they should run. By the end, the floor was full of cuttings and there was loads of splicing tape in place. The end result was an absolutely mad mix that was IMHO ahead of its time, but it never got much exposure and I probably have as many copies in my collection as were sold commercially. [[Sigh)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotspurman
It was always claimed that the Pye studio at Great Cumberland Place was one of the best in London, with the best engineers to boot. I don’t know whether that claim was right, since I didn’t have much to compare it with, although I did some work at CBS’ studio at Whitfield Street [[how apt is that name!) a good few years later and they seemed as savvy as their counterparts at Pye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotosound
What was funny was trying to work with engineers who were more used to dealing with Max Bygraves, Lena Martwell, Brotherhood of Man and assorted other popular artists as opposed to the funk inclinations of Michael Henderson and B.T. Express.
A couple of years later in Miami I had my first experiences of digital editing, at a recording session for Julio Iglesias, of all people. I watched with some amazement as the engineer and producer were able to punch in a word here, a phrase there and then another word in order to create a seamless entity that resulted in Julio’s first full English language album. In fact, I can still recall them using a different colour coding to differentiate from one session to another, resulting in the finished article being a virtual rainbow!
It's better for high frequencies. And, since there is less tape hiss at higher speeds, there is no need for the use of noise reduction like Dolby or dbx, although there are many 30 i.p.s. [[inches per second) masters or copies that were encoded with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ralpht
The problem with using noise reduction is that one has to have the same unit and have it perfectly calibrated for the tape. It is more often used on 15 i.p.s. tape.
The reason an engineer would use 15 i.p.s. tape, [[as Motown typically did in the 60s) was to conserve tape. Also, some producers today like the bass bump around 260 Hz.
Ralph, I believe 30 i.p.s. came into fashion somewhere in the mid-70s.
That is debatable. Some believe that 24-bit/192 kHz digital matches, if not surpasses analog reel-to-reel. That may be a debate that will never be won, except that, many, including myself, believe that any digital over 96kHz is worse, and is overkill. But, the bottom line is always to use your ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas96
I've always assumed that the sound quality heard on playback in a recording studio, [[and/or from a Master, assuming they are different items) is far superior to anything heard on any subsequent copies bought by the consumer - ?
But, now, that has changed with the availability of downloadable hi-rez albums, SACD, and DVD-A. But, remember, the final mastered version that leaves the mastering room is what the consumer hears. Many people think that once something is mixed, that's the end of the process, but it isn't. It has to be mastered. What you hear as a product may or may not be superior to what was in the studio or mastering room.Quote:
Originally Posted by westgrandboulevard