Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:25 am

That's very kind, thank you Billyblues!

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:01 am

Chris Roberts wrote:
HoneyTalkNelson wrote:
I have never understood why 'Do The Clam', during the instrumentel break after the first part, all the sound - both voice and instruments - just come out of one speaker. Any ideas anyone :?:

The primary intent was for mono, that's why the music is isolated to one channel, background singers on another and Elvis on the third.

Thanks for your reply. However what I was trying to explain is that the first part of the instrumental sax break is as you discribe. But the second part goes from what you discribe to just one speaker. Even on the mono album it sounds odd. I suppose it is as Tony says, it was just spliced on to make our listening pleasure :lol: last longer, but not much care was taken in doing so.

This is how it should really sound, and the version I use everytime. Enjoy!

DO THE CLAM (Repaired)

Image
Last edited by JimmyCool on Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:49 pm

Thank you Mr. Cool. Unfortunatly I can't listen to it as yet :( as the following message comes up - "Error (509) This account's public links are generating too much traffic and have temporarily been disabled" - and when I try to download it just states "This file coudn't be downloaded". I'll try again later.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:10 pm

Chris Roberts wrote:Thank you Mr. Cool. Unfortunatly I can't listen to it as yet :( as the following message comes up - "Error (509) This account's public links are generating too much traffic and have temporarily been disabled" - and when I try to download it just states "This file coudn't be downloaded". I'll try again later.

Link fixed now! :wink:
http://www51.zippyshare.com/v/90953955/file.html
Last edited by JimmyCool on Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:58 pm

JimmyCool wrote:
Chris Roberts wrote:Thank you Mr. Cool. Unfortunatly I can't listen to it as yet :( as the following message comes up - "Error (509) This account's public links are generating too much traffic and have temporarily been disabled" - and when I try to download it just states "This file coudn't be downloaded". I'll try again later.

Link fixed now! :wink:
http://www.mediafire.com/?75213l73p8kk18o



Thanks very much Jimmy, now 'Do The Clam' sounds like it always should have done, I almost like the song now :lol:

What did you do, edit the first half of the sax solo onto the second? I just don't understand how it got through quality control in 1965, and why this 'fault' wasn't corrected on future releases such as the double features. :?

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:59 pm

The background singers kill that instrumental break.

I think that's what happened on the original mix. They were dialed out halfway through the break. That's why there's a shift in the balance.

Either way, they shouldn't have been there, in my opinion.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:44 pm

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:The background singers kill that instrumental break.

I think that's what happened on the original mix. They were dialed out halfway through the break. That's why there's a shift in the balance.

Either way, they shouldn't have been there, in my opinion.


So, in your opinion or expertise HoneyTalkNelson, take for instance, "Little Sister" on 2003's, "Second To None", and again, on the recent, "Elvis Is Back", 2fer on Legacy, it sounds fantastic, but then you hear that 1986/1987 mix featured on, "Return Of The Rocker", "The Top Ten Hits", and it's like, "WOW", what a punch !

Were those tracks remixed, (again), ?

the bass is so prominant, punchy for that 80's kinda technology ?

Another good example is 1987's, "Memphis Record".

A lousy example of no bass would be 1972's, "Burning Love" on "The Top Ten Hits". Someone at the board forgot to turn the bass switch on !!! :x

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:23 am

That's not remixing, it's just different EQ settings. Rick Rowe liked to punch up the bass quite a bit.

The only remixing you can do with a three track is alter the levels of the different channels. With the Nashville sessions, they're perfect the way they are with Bill Porter's excellent work. There's no reason to change it.

The Radio Recorders material is a different story. The three tracks were primarily used to isolate the music, singers and background for mono mixing purposes. Except for the two Fox titles, none of the 1960's films had a stereo release.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:36 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:That's not remixing, it's just different EQ settings. Rick Rowe liked to punch up the bass quite a bit.

The only remixing you can do with a three track is alter the levels of the different channels. With the Nashville sessions, they're perfect the way they are with Bill Porter's excellent work. There's no reason to change it.

The Radio Recorders material is a different story. The three tracks were primarily used to isolate the music, singers and background for mono mixing purposes. Except for the two Fox titles, none of the 1960's films had a stereo release.

Do you mean in the theaters?

Also, do you agree that, after 1963, disinterest in the artistic process and focus on a quick buck, is the primary reason the Presley film soundtracks are such a poor audio experience?

And as much as I admire the tremendous skills of engineer Bill Porter, the official release of his final work for an Elvis Presley session is not such a hot listen.

Soundtrack Session for M.G.M.: Kissin' Cousins
RCA Studio B, Nashville, Tennessee, September 29-30, 1963

http://www.elvisrecordings.com/s630929.htm

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:03 am

Yes, in theaters.

I think KISSIN' COUSINS suffers more from the overdubs than anything else. Plus, MGM probably instructed Porter to isolate the three channels for their mono mixing needs.

The engineers were required to deliver what the producer needed. At least on the film soundtracks, stereo was not the primary consideration.

So far as sonic quality, I've heard some sessions directly from the 1/2-inch, 3 track masters. FRANKIE AND JOHNNY and SPINOUT (both Radio Recorders) sounded excellent, while DOUBLE TROUBLE (4 track, MGM) and EASY COME, EASY GO (3 track, Paramount scoring stage) were rather poor by comparison.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:38 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:Yes, in theaters.

I think KISSIN' COUSINS suffers more from the overdubs than anything else. Plus, MGM probably instructed Porter to isolate the three channels for their mono mixing needs.

The engineers were required to deliver what the producer needed. At least on the film soundtracks, stereo was not the primary consideration.

So far as sonic quality, I've heard some sessions directly from the 1/2-inch, 3 track masters. FRANKIE AND JOHNNY and SPINOUT (both Radio Recorders) sounded excellent, while DOUBLE TROUBLE (4 track, MGM) and EASY COME, EASY GO (3 track, Paramount scoring stage) were rather poor by comparison.


This is just outstanding information.

Tell us more, please.

So, your definetely a fan of Rick Rowe's Elvis remastering ?

Have you heard any of Elvis' recording sessions from the 1970's reels ?

I think you mentioned once you've heard "Promised Land" and "I've Got A Thing About You Baby" in original and overdub form ?

By the way, I downloaded the "Kissin' Cousins" soundtrack on Itunes and coming thru my bose sound system, I was quite impressed with the rematsred sound, much better than I had remembered.

Any additional thoughts ?

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:45 am

I would like to know more to.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:26 am

Pete Dube wrote:Double Trouble and Easy Come, Easy Go were recorded on the movie studio's soundstages. That accounts for the poor sound quality. The real mystery is why Harum Scarum and Frankie & Johnny sounded so poor.



If you liaten to the Double Features: both Harum Scarum and Frankie and Johnny sound much better than the original mixes. Even if you don't dig the songs, what Ernst did back then with DF was a real improvement on the sound, Too bad he didn't keep them for The Complete Masters and FTD releases. Going back to the original mixes was going back to RCA's bad choices. Viva Las Vegas, is another song that could have been recorded with a better balance between both channels: but the whole orchestra was on one side and the chorus on the other. while If You Think I Don't Need You, no chorus on it, had instruments well distributed between both channels. Seems the presence of chorus in the 3 channels format had limitations but also lack of care from the producers.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:39 am

Tornado, why didn't Ernst keep those mixes for the Complete Masters and the FTD Classic albums??? Simple! They are not the original sound! What is it that you do not understand??? The Complete Masters and the FTD Classic releases are not meant to revise or change history, but meant to present the music in its original form.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:14 pm

it's not just the mid 60's soundtracks...take a listen to one of my all time fave(and vastly underrated) Elvis love songs from 1962's 'world's fair..."they remind me too much of you". there is a horrendous hiss on this....i think they leaned a tape recorder against a speaker to record this track..lol.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:31 pm

And ironically the best recorded and best sounding stereo soundtrack masters of the 60's got lost (follow that dream soundtrack)

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:47 pm

Patrick68 wrote:Tornado, why didn't Ernst keep those mixes for the Complete Masters and the FTD Classic albums??? Simple! They are not the original sound! What is it that you do not understand??? The Complete Masters and the FTD Classic releases are not meant to revise or change history, but meant to present the music in its original form.



I understand that.But I feel it's being fundamentalist while a little upgrade or update can't do no harm and show the best of the same peformance. We accept all kinds of upgrading to squeeze out all the juice from a past recording.The Double Features did that for HS and F&J and it makes a more pleasant listening experience, by far - well at least to me. Besides we, the old timer do not listen to music the same way we did in our youth. Even Elvis admitted it in the 68 TV special:"Musician has improved, engineers ..." Above all, seems a lot of fans agree on the poor sound quality of the mid-sixties movie soundracks: a pity. Then what's wrong in give it a seocnd chance to shine a little bit better? Original form remains the key, I'll give you that, but some exceptions can only make it better and it doesn't dismantled completly the intention: it only makes it more to the point. Another example, is the choice of keeping the mono masters for a couple of songs from the Follow That Dream soundrack on The Complete Masters. RCA has excellent outtakes in pefect stereo and it takes a damn good listener to detect the difference. A footnote could have explained that and it wouldn't have done no harm. And for those who are so keen on original - including some clcks, cracks ... - they have it all already in their collection. As for the others, they don't care that much and can't even hear the difference. Well, that all folks, only a point a view and finallly all mixes are available anyway to satisfy anyone's fetichistic gems.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:36 pm

Patrick68 wrote:Tornado, why didn't Ernst keep those mixes for the Complete Masters and the FTD Classic albums??? Simple! They are not the original sound! What is it that you do not understand??? The Complete Masters and the FTD Classic releases are not meant to revise or change history, but meant to present the music in its original form.


This is all true. However, when F&J soundtrack was reissued in 2010 for general release, they still used the original mixes, which was, I think, a mistake considering that these releases were not aimed at fans, but the general public.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:23 pm

I actually prefer "dry" vocals from any artist or band. I hate reverb!! I consider the 1960-1963 Bill Porter recordings the best of Elvis' career, but had they not had reverb on the vocals, they would have been even better.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:31 pm

Tornado, I do not need a lecture to understand that. I was not born yesterday, and I am a true collector, and know very well that sound can be improved without changing the original sound of the recording, that is called remastering the sound. Remixing and altering the original sound is what I do not like, especially when these recordings are released as original recordings such as the Complete Masters, and the FTD Classics albums. Remixing the sound and releasing it on its own is fine with me, and remastering the original albums and preserving the original sound is the way it should be, even God almighty Ernst has talked about this, and agreed. Even with the flaws it might intail.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:06 am

poormadpeter wrote:
Patrick68 wrote:Tornado, why didn't Ernst keep those mixes for the Complete Masters and the FTD Classic albums??? Simple! They are not the original sound! What is it that you do not understand??? The Complete Masters and the FTD Classic releases are not meant to revise or change history, but meant to present the music in its original form.


This is all true. However, when F&J soundtrack was reissued in 2010 for general release, they still used the original mixes, which was, I think, a mistake considering that these releases were not aimed at fans, but the general public.


The general public doesn't go that deep in comparing mixes anyway. I hold my stand on this: in IMHO I think musically the DF's versions are better. Well, everybody is entitled to his most humble opinion. It was just a point of view. Yours truely.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:32 am

Tornado wrote:I hold my stand on this: in IMHO I think musically the DF's versions are better. Well, everybody is entitled to his most humble opinion. It was just a point of view. Yours truely.

The Double Features' versions are way much better.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:53 am

I was 6 when Elvis hit with Heartbreak Hotel in '56. I grew up listening to the original mixes of whatever the current RCA release was at the time. I know them. I'm comfortable with them. They're like old freinds. I HATE when somebody screws with them. The original, vintage mixes is what I prefer.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:29 pm

JerryNodak wrote:I was 6 when Elvis hit with Heartbreak Hotel in '56. I grew up listening to the original mixes of whatever the current RCA release was at the time. I know them. I'm comfortable with them. They're like old freinds. I HATE when somebody screws with them. The original, vintage mixes is what I prefer.


If it was up to me, I would have released the soundtracks as 2 cd sets.
Disc 1: Original mix plus outakes. Disc 2: Remix of the album (a la Double Features) plus more outakes.

Re: Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so

Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:41 am

javilu wrote:
JerryNodak wrote:I was 6 when Elvis hit with Heartbreak Hotel in '56. I grew up listening to the original mixes of whatever the current RCA release was at the time. I know them. I'm comfortable with them. They're like old freinds. I HATE when somebody screws with them. The original, vintage mixes is what I prefer.


If it was up to me, I would have released the soundtracks as 2 cd sets.
Disc 1: Original mix plus outakes. Disc 2: Remix of the album (a la Double Features) plus more outakes.


Great idea. i like it, provided Lene R. is locked in her room and has nothing to do with the project. Yes, I would re-buy the '60's soundtracks if they were presented in this way. Give the remixing/remastering job to Vic Anesini.