Sinatra / Capitol Sound & Photo Quality: "Sinatra's Swingin' Session!!!" - 1961

For the Sinatra contributors: I have put up some info regarding the mono mixes that you may find either interesting or absolutely insane, and I'm not sure which is closer to the truth, but what better place for discussion than SH.TV, no? I'm ready to be flogged! (...and it's still a "work in progress," by the way, so there's no real "punchline" yet.)

In essence, it raises questions and proposes potential answers about how the mono mixes of Come Dance with Me, No One Cares, Nice 'N' Easy, and Sinatra's Swingin' Session were originally created, and how the album (Swingin' Session) was miked. Comments -- including critical ones -- are welcome!

...and it may be 100% hogwash. (Steve, I'm ready to return to my padded cell.)

http://web.me.com/mlutthans/MitchMiller/1961_-_Sinatras_Swingin_Session!!!4.html

Matt

EDIT: I've added additional info about track assignments for each section. (They vary slightly)

 

Well, the spots are on the tie, FWIW.

As far as that "mic stand" in the previous post goes, we've (collectively) sort of been down this road before: If you can't see what's on the top of the stand, you really can't tell what it is. For instance, in the COME DANCE WITH ME discussion, a photo showing a tall stand (shown below) was brought up as being a tall distant stereo mic stand, which I demonstrated -- I think conclusively -- here to be something else altogether.

I also don't think that that tall stand in the previous post is a mic stand. I think it is a light/flash stand for the photo crew. For one thing, the "segments" on the stand are all wrong. If you look at a known "tall stereo mic" stand, such as the one in the color photo below, you can see that the stand has two vertical segments, with a very lengthy boom attached. Think about it: In a studio situation where "time is money," the last thing an engineer would want to do is to set up a high stand that is straight or whose boom is not within reach. Why? If you set the mic up and then realize that it needs to be closer or further away (after hearing a run through), if it's on a straight pole you have to physically move the entire stand closer -- where there may not be any available real estate -- or further away (same potential problem). Booms would be used, and booms that can be actually accessed/re-angled by a 6-foot tall guy, not booms that are attached 15 feet up in the air.

(In that same color photo, you can also see one of the lighting units, by the way.)

In all the Capitol photos that I've seen -- and it's a lot of them -- I have literally seen one single session that inconclusively shows the stereo mics in action: The Dean Martin/Frank Sinatra sessions for Dean's Sleep Warm album. In fact, in different shots, you can see BOTH of the high stereo mics, plus the lower mics used for mono. I have seen zero photos from SWINGIN' SESSION that show a stereo mic. I've seen some shots showing tall poles, but those could be anything. Based on what I hear, a "tall stereo mic" stand is the last thing I would suspect. Listen (here, if you are a contributor to the Sinatra pages - my apologies to the rest of the SH.TV bunch) to the "drive a truck through the middle" and the "this is my favorite knob twiddler example" tidbits on the samples page again. The "truck" clip has absolutely zero "air" or "space" around any of those instruments. Why? Because everything is (by 1960 standards) "close miked." No distant mics to get "room sound." Similary, listen to that "my favorite" clip. When the string mics -- with gain cranked -- are "open," you can hear the room, reflections, leakage, etc. When they shut down, all that openness/roomy sound goes away, because there are no room mics.

IMO, of course....but if I'm wrong I'll.... well, I'm not going to make a promise, but I'm sure that I'm correct on this. We have aural evidence of violin mics being opened and closed, of solo spots, sax spot, bass spot, drum spot, celeste spot, trumpet spot, trombone spot, guitar spot, Frank spot, mallet spot, maybe a harp spot (I'm admittedly not 100% positive on that one, but I'm pretty sure)..... even if there is no harp spot (but I think there is), and even if the strings use only one mic (I think they had two), that's 11 mics, and if you add in a couple of distant stereo mics, you're up to 13, which is, as far as my knowledge of 1960 studio gear goes, a non-starter. (FWIW, I don't even think of them as spot mics in most cases. I view them as section mics, with solo spots and spots on the rhythm section players, and a mic on Frank.)

On the Walsh CD, the stereo image is blurred enough (through, to my ears, creative use of reverb, primarily) that I can hear why somebody might "hear" some room sound, but as I said before, it's pretty severe audio revisionism.

Matt

(MPTV link)

 

Even in the oft-cited photo below, note that 1.) It's not plugged in; 2.) There are no musicians in sight, aside from Frank; and 3.) There is no left-channel stereo mate visible. Who knows what the heck it is doing there. For all we know, it was tilted down later and used as the mono woodwind mic.

Remember, too, that these behemoth stands can't just be tucked behind the desk in the booth. They tend to "knock around," as in the second photo.

Matt

 

Here are shots showing the tall stereo mics.....or not.... pre-"Tower," pre-1956: (MPTV link)

 

As for the famous shots from opening day at the Tower (Studio B, as Studio A was not yet ready), that tall mic could have been a couple of things.

1. Remember, this is literally Session 1, Day 1 in a brand new, highly anticipated facility. My guess is that every audio nerd in Hollywood wanted to know how the room could handle a single-mic recording, a la Mercury Olympian Series. Could have been there for that, sort of a "test recording" thing.

2. It could have been there to get some "room sound" into the recording, to add a little spaciousness, etc.

3. Could have been there as a safety net. "What if we cram everybody in that small room and all those mics sound too close? Let's put a mic up high that we can use as a fallback."

Who knows????

(MPTV link)

 

Photos of stray mic stands just knocking around the Capitol studios: (MPTV link)

 

Like I've said to others here via PM: "My kingdom for a time machine!" So many questions, so few answers....

At least the music turned out pretty well!

Matt

PS - It's 2 AM your time. Go to bed!

 

No doubt, that's certainly how things started until....date uncertain.

Please Please Me would have been two-track tape, but I understand your point. I didn't say that the three-track would have been monitored/made/mixed in the mono booth (as we "know" it.) Could have happened a few ways, I suppose, for Come Dance with Me and No One Cares. Since both of *those* albums used no more than 7 mics (including Frank's "split" feed), and our host has confirmed that 7 was the max for the "snack bar stereo booth," they certainly could have run 7 split signals up there, just piggy-backing on the 7 mics (that seem to have been) used for mono, and hired an engineer/monkey to keep an ear on things.

Or, knowing that saxes and rhythm section would be "hard" on one channel, and brass would be "hard" on the other channel, with Frank alone on the third track, if two aux sends (or other outputs) were available on the mono board, some mics could have been "sent up" pre-mixed for the sax/rhythm, some "pre-mixed" -- and it may have been a single mic anyway -- for the brass channel, and Frank flying solo on the third channel. Depends on the output options available on the mono board as much as anything else. (That example would stem from Come Dance with Me.)

A third option has been intimated when people say that certain instruments sound "closer" on either the stereo or mono version. That option would be: There must have been mics that were "close" for one format and "not quite so close but not the high, distant mics" for the other format. I challenge anybody to come up with a single photo at Capitol of, say, a double-miked piano, with a mic kinda close and another mic not quite so close. That option appears to be falderal.

My money's on option 1 for those two albums.

My mental jury is out on Nice 'N' Easy. The stereo miking is still a 7-mic affair, I believe, so either of the options above would be possible on this title, too. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that a mono mix was done live (maybe just for the first session, maybe the whole thing), and then compared to what they could get from an automated mix from the two-track stereo mixdown. All I was doing on that page you linked was proposing possibilities that gel with what I hear. Hard to say for sure.

Now, Swingin' Session is a different beast altogether. I think that this is where it's very possible that our long-accepted timeline on these "facts" about Capitol is off. I think that this is clearly more than a 7-mic recording, which means that we *must* have had some equipment upgrades going on at Capitol. Why would you upgrade to a 12-channel stereo board if you were still working in the snack bar with only a few cable runs? Wouldn't it make more sense to get your shiny new 12-input stereo board when you overhauled the booth? Along those same lines, Capitol re-entered the stereo tape market in 1959 and began courting the stereo LP fans in 1958. Does it make sense for them to be saying, "Hey, stereo listeners, come buy our sloppily prepared products at a premium price! We luvs ya!"?? No. I fully believe what engineer Bill Putnam said about how "BY NO MEANS" was the mono product ever to be jeopardized in these early stereo days, which is why I believe Capitol ditched the "minimalist stereo" jazz and went to a "3-track tape that could be used for great mono and still pretty good stereo." This wasn't something they went into lightly. As I tried to review on that linked page, this was a methodical, gradual process of finding what works, and since Capitol was not in business to lose money, it had to work and be economically sound. Running double-staffed, double booths -- even with minimal staffing -- was not smart in long-term economic terms. Would it be smart to hire two *quality* engineers -- who brought with them the mettle to make important mixing decisions "on the fly" -- to make sure that your mono and stereo products -- recorded separately -- sounded great? Not really. Would it make sense to hire an "A Grade" guy to do the mono, then hire an "el-cheapo" guy to do "sort of keep an eye on" the stereo mix, and hope for the best? No. The answer? ONE SYSTEM ------> Two mixes. I think that the experiments we've (apparently) found on the Sinatra and Cole albums were probably done 3- or 4-fold on albums by "lesser artists." What we've actually "caught" on these "famous" albums is, I'm confident, the tip of the Capitol iceberg.

Yes, as referenced in "the link."

Yes, this sort of scenario is exactly what I meant in "the link" by the brief, second phase of stereo recording, evidenced by the Just One of those Things album by Nat Cole. My ears tell me they tried doing an automated-yet-multi-miked stereo mix, and it was quite problematic. I would direct you to (click on links and scan down as needed):

Song #1: Balance problems, as the piano is sharing the center track with Nat, and assumedly being fed more or less "blind" to the stereo booth; Distortion on the bass mic

Song #2: Guitar Hum and missing tuba mic

Next session, song #1: A tuba mic that only works for the last 12 seconds of the song!

and song #2: The piano that ate Cincinnati

Session 3, song #1: Maybe things weren't set up in time? Technical gremlins? For some reason, on this song only, it's back to the "minimalist" stereo techniques. My guess is, they went into a bit of a panic due to time, and just had to get something that would get them by.

John Kraus probably lost a year of his life due to stress from those sessions!

I know of no stereo albums from Capitol that were a mix of high/overhead stereo miking PLUS spot/section miking. The tall mics, AFAIK, "flew solo" or didn't fly. Again, that's as far as I know. Could be wrong.

Well, I don't think that jives with what I hear on the recordings. What can I say?

I agree on the aspirin and exotica. Maybe it's time for a good Dick Hyman album!

Matt

 

Hey Matt,

I think it's possible that the stereo engineers just forgot about some stuff.

Example: On four songs on Nat Cole's ST. LOUIS BLUES, the rhythm section is "enforced" and is on the center channel with Nat's vocal. The rest have the rhythm unenforced in the left channel.

On a bunch of songs on Nat's THE VERY THOUGHT OF YOU the same thing. The drums, bass, etc. on the center channel. Probably fed from downstairs, miked like the mono.

Not all the songs, not none of the songs, just SOME of the songs.

I wonder why. Bet they just forgot?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the middle of 1958 the decision was made to record EVERYTHING at the Capitol Tower in mono and three-track. I mean EVERYTHING (Wanda Jackson, etc.), I saw the memo. They must have had a plan to combine the mono and binaural studios at that time but since mono a and mono b both were in constant USE, it took them a long time to get them combined with their stereo snack bar counterparts. Years.

 

Not possible. I heard the work these guys produced. They were superhuman with superhuman brains.

 

That's funny, because here's how I feel about the whole thing:

I'm not really qualified to give an informed opinion on my theory. However, I find it totally fascinating.

The only actually-audible thorn in the side of all the "previously accepted" stuff is: "Why?" Specifically, why did Capitol start doing well-balanced (in terms of left-to-right balance) stereo recording using the minimalist technique (two mics on the orchestra, then (apparently) start dabbling/experimenting in methods that essentially aped their mono system, while adding one more mic on the winds (not a "distant" mic, but a "section" mic) so there would be a stereo "base" for everything).....

Well, let's stop right there for a minute. "Version 1," the minimalist technique, could not be used to create a consistently good mono mixdown. Too much phase cancellation because of the spaced pair of omni mics. "Version 2," the "copy the mono mics but use two mics on the winds instead of one" routine probably created less-than-totally-satisfactory mono mixdown results (if they even tried that), plus, it became very clear that they (Capitol) really would have needed to hire two skilled engineers to get proper results. Merely sending a piano mic "up the line" to the center channel in the upstairs booth didn't seem to work all that well. Running blind was not the best.

OK, back tot he first part of the story: .......then they (apparently) gave up and went back to using just two mics on the orchestra for stereo, but they (the engineers and others in the loop, ie., "the bosses") must have seen that their two attempts (Version 1 and Version 2) really weren't that great. Version 1 was fine for things that were genuinely "orchestral" in nature, but was far from impressive when there was a jazz band at work, and Version 2 required a real "hands on" approach to be reliable, so...."What will version 3 be?" These guys knew all about phase cancellation and mid-side and stuff like that. They were smart cookies, and Capitol was issuing Stokowski recordings made with single mid-side mics starting in 1957 (on stereo tape). This was no mystery to them. They knew that if they had left and right stereo tracks that were essentially "un-intermingled," they could be "mingled" into mono with essentially no negative effects on frequency response. The results would be very predictable. The stereo would suffer to a degree, but *most* people buying the stereo product wouldn't notice. It's like my buddy Craig says, and I think he's right: For about 90% of filmgoers, you could play the movie soundtrack through a single speaker and it would be just fine. There's just that small element that's going to leave the theatre and say, "Geez, the sound was all messed up."* If Capitol were to put out a stereo product that sounded hi-fi and kinda stereo-y, most people would think it was pretty groovy. The hi-fi part was more important than the actual stereo part. If the tone became questionable, that would be bad. As long as the tone is alive and vibrant ("hi-fi"), the stereo can be a little wonky and Joe Public will be okay. I think there had to eventually be that sort of mind set, i.e., "We can do this and be okay," "this" being: Alter the type of stereo we are producing in order to have a system that is "good" for stereo and yet 100% mono compatible. It didn't happen quickly. We're talking roughly two years from "Love is the Thing" to "Come Dance with Me." Lots of growth pains in between.**

To me, that scenario answers the "Why" question. It's logical, and it lines up well with what I hear on the recordings. Maybe there are other scenarios that answer the "Why" question, but if there are, I can't think of them. None of this stuff just happened because of some random acts. Somebody was asking questions, and somebody was trying to find solutions, right? Money was important. "Hey, fellow Capitol label bosses and staff: We are now expected to produce dual-inventory for mono and this new stereo junk. How can we do that cost-effectively and reliably?".....and the ball started rolling.

That's my theory!

*To illustrate: On Labor Day, I saw "Windjammer" at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. This movie originally had 7-track magnetic sound. The version on Labor Day used a digital two-track matrixed mix fed through a Dolby decoder, providing a sort-of-4-track final result. Nobody said a word about it. Even I thought it sounded pretty good, and I *knew* what was going on!

** and I don't think that it happened all at once, especially after seeing Steve's post this morning, but signs of conversion started to appear with COME DANCE WITH ME.

Matt

 

Matt,

I'm sorry but these guys didn't know as much as you think they did. Most (almost ALL) of the three-track stuff from 1956 on is seriously out of phase, needing 1 and 3 to be flipped in mixing. Sometimes they corrected the problem, sometimes they just left it. Sometimes, the phase flip makes it sound in phase but almost mono. I think they LIKED the out of phase sound. Heck, even some stereo Capitol vinyl LP's have the VOCAL out of phase. That has to be a mistake. This is years after they started doing this.

I think they really didn't know what they were doing that much with the stereo stuff. Remember, these were veteran mono engineers suddenly thrown into this double inventory pit that I'm sure they didn't want or need. Just meant more work. They had just finished building these great mono studios from scratch and now this weird stereo stuff shows up, just when they are getting the bugs out of their new mono control rooms. They probably were quite unhappy. It took them years to bite the bullet and revise the mono rooms to add stereo mixing instead of using the break room upstairs.

An example of indifference: The stereo version of Non Dimenticar by NKC even though they knew it was going to be a hit "push" release and possibly an album track has NO microphones on any of the crucial rhythm tracks on the three-track version, making everything sound distant and remote.

I just don't think they cared that much about stereo. I could be wrong I guess but in some cases they didn't even bother to match the edits with the mono hit versions of things.

Ah, well, at least the music is good.

 

Lots to digest in that post, Steve. I'll try to hit it all! As far as the phase stuff goes and them liking how that sounded, here's my real life relationship to that:

As some of you know, I'm a semi-out-of-the-biz classical recording guy. Ten years ago or so, there was a guy in Seattle who was basically "splitting duty" on recording a concert festival that was going to be potentially aired on NPR, and NPR sent us these guidelines for how to make NPR-worthy classical recordings. My friend, who we'll call "Engineer X," followed those guidelines to a T, i.e., everything was done with co-incident miking (directional mikes with no space between them), things were kept in fairly close, etc., spot mics were added for soloists, no artificial reverb was added, etc. Meanwhile, I, who we'll call "Engineer Dork," recorded everything with very carefully placed spaced omnis, no spot mics, and a little bit of reverb mixed in just to warm things up a bit. In other words, "Engineer Dork" recorded in a very anti-NPR fashion. We sent the recordings back to (as I recall) Washington DC for review, and NPR broadcast exactly zero of the recordings made to their own specifications by Engineer X, and broadcast every single recording made by Engineer Dork (me), and called Engineer Dork to ask if he could record any other stuff for them. Mind you: I fully realize that using the spaced omnis is all "technically whacko," but I also know that in that building with that group, it could sound great in stereo, so I made that choice, regardless of what my own "science" told me.

So, I have no doubt that the initial stereo setups were done (at least partially) because the engineers liked how it sounded. Apileocole and I have also thrown around some PMs about how the engineers were probably also quite influenced by what was "en vogue" at the time, and in 1956 commercial "Stereo" meant two things in this country: RCA (spaced omnis) and Mercury (spaced omnis), so when it came time to record in stereo at Capitol, my guess is that they "went with what they knew," at least by and large. (Some of those early stereo classical things on Capitol, like Stokowski with the Los Angeles Philharmonic recorded with three omnis over at Goldwyn Studios were really poorly done. Dry as a bone and very "in your face." IMO.)

As far as the phase stuff goes, if it's just two omnis and they are spaced to essentially split the orchestra into even thirds, the phase is going to be somewhere in the region of "random" anyway, depending on the spacing, position of the players, etc. Let's say that to have all the mics properly set would get you ~ 60% toward "in phase." If you have a mic cable that is soldered backwards or something, now you are looking at 40% in terms of final stereo product. Not a huge difference, really. If you want phase coherency, you ain't gonna find it on those early stereo recordings! (There are likely exceptions, no doubt.)

As far as the VOCAL being out of phase, that would be a polarity problem that went unchecked during the mixing phase, not during the session, necessarily. Because it's a mono element, it could easily be fixed/checked during mixdown, and should have been. Then again, there's that infamous first stereo mix of COME DANCE WITH ME that has the vocal and its reverb all in one channel. Mistakes were made now and then....

I'll have to track down NON DOMINTICAR in stereo -- sounds like a fun listen! I only have it in mono.

And yes, there are definitely (in the canons of Cole and Sinatra) some edits that were made in mono and not in stereo. Could be not caring. Could be (in the stereo-tape-but-not-yet-on-stereo-LP days) that it was viewed as not being worth the time since only about 12 people are ever going to hear it in stereo. In some cases, too, a year or two may go by between the mono release and stereo LP release, and if the edits were subtle and no notes were left, it could just be lack of awareness about the original edits.

Fun to think about this stuff!

Matt