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

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

Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:12 pm

chesay7 wrote:Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so poor ?

Wouldn't the original sound/recording engineers be the ones to blame?


intheghetto wrote:I have several first or first re-issues on LP of the soundtracks in stereo. 'Double Trouble', .... actually sound good to me.

"Could I Fall In Love" from the original Double Trouble album sounds terrible on any sound system.

However, the extended, unedited master of "Could I Fall In Love" from the Double Trouble FTD sounds fantastic!

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

Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:45 am

Having heard some of this material from the 3-track 1/2-inch tape masters when I visited Rick Rowe at RCA around 1990, I can assure you that the master recordings are (for the most part) very high quality. "Frankie and Johnny" sounded terrific and packed quite a punch on the studio's sound system.

It's the bad mixes and the subsequent multi-generation dubs that are poor.

Sonically, the first decade of tube era stereophonic recordings are some of the best. Those engineers were audiophiles and knew what they were doing. It's the later, multi-track/solid state era when you begin to run into problems.

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

Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:10 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:Having heard some of this material from the 3-track 1/2-inch tape masters when I visited Rick Rowe at RCA around 1990, I can assure you that the master recordings are (for the most part) very high quality. "Frankie and Johnny" sounded terrific and packed quite a punch on the studio's sound system.

It's the bad mixes and the subsequent multi-generation dubs that are poor.

Sonically, the first decade of tube era stereophonic recordings are some of the best. Those engineers were audiophiles and knew what they were doing. It's the later, multi-track/solid state era when you begin to run into problems.

I enjoy your posts very much, thank you :)

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

Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:40 pm

makes me wonder have the 1st generation masters ever been used on any elvis cd?anyone know?

Why is sound quality on the mid-sixties soundtracks so poor

Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:45 pm

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:Having heard some of this material from the 3-track 1/2-inch tape masters when I visited Rick Rowe at RCA around 1990, I can assure you that the master recordings are (for the most part) very high quality. "Frankie and Johnny" sounded terrific and packed quite a punch on the studio's sound system.

It's the bad mixes and the subsequent multi-generation dubs that are poor.

Sonically, the first decade of tube era stereophonic recordings are some of the best. Those engineers were audiophiles and knew what they were doing. It's the later, multi-track/solid state era when you begin to run into problems.



Very credible comments. One only has to listen to outtakes of harum and Frankie and Johnny. Miles better than the original masters. Even the remixed 1993 masters sound much better.

But even so, no one could save those soundtracks that have all the band on one channel (viva las Vegas) or those recorded on soundstage (like double trouble)

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

Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:23 pm

Agreed, MGM and Paramount were primarily recording for mono with the music on one track, vocals on another and singers on a third. Stereo was not the main consideration.

As I pointed out in the recent "Elvis is Back" discussion, these albums were much bigger sellers in mono than stereo. That's why they should be available in mono on CD, that's how most people originally heard them.

Bob

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

Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:23 pm

JimmyCool wrote:
HoneyTalkNelson wrote:Having heard some of this material from the 3-track 1/2-inch tape masters when I visited Rick Rowe at RCA around 1990, I can assure you that the master recordings are (for the most part) very high quality. "Frankie and Johnny" sounded terrific and packed quite a punch on the studio's sound system.

It's the bad mixes and the subsequent multi-generation dubs that are poor.

Sonically, the first decade of tube era stereophonic recordings are some of the best. Those engineers were audiophiles and knew what they were doing. It's the later, multi-track/solid state era when you begin to run into problems.

I enjoy your posts very much, thank you :)


Thank you, that's very kind of you. I try my best!

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

Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:10 pm

i still wonder if the orignal 1st generation masters have ever been used on cd?

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

Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:50 am

Hi there!! :D :D :D.

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:Having heard some of this material from the 3-track 1/2-inch tape masters when I visited Rick Rowe at RCA around 1990, I can assure you that the master recordings are (for the most part) very high quality. "Frankie and Johnny" sounded terrific and packed quite a punch on the studio's sound system.

It's the bad mixes and the subsequent multi-generation dubs that are poor.

Sonically, the first decade of tube era stereophonic recordings are some of the best. Those engineers were audiophiles and knew what they were doing. It's the later, multi-track/solid state era when you begin to run into problems.


So are you stating with this that the latest boxset Elvis-The Complete Masters on the soundtracks songs Ernst Jorgensen didn´t use the original master tapes :roll:. I can´t believe it :shock:. Please explain. Thanks. Bye for now :smt006.

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

Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:04 am

I don't know and I can't say for sure, I haven't heard the new digital masters. I'm sure every effort was made to utilize the best source materials.

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

Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:06 am

Hi there!! :D :D :D.

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:I don't know and I can't say for sure, I haven't heard the new digital masters. I'm sure every effort was made to utilize the best source materials.


Try to find the time to listen to the new masters and please let us know your opinion :wink:. Thanks. Bye for now :smt006.

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

Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:01 am

I don't have the new set but I suspect they worked from the 1/4-inch 2 track stereo masters that were prepared for vinyl release. Unlike the raw 1/2-inch 3 track tapes, those would have been mixed and EQ'd for vinyl. That's why the outtakes from the 3 track sessions sound better.

They may not even have the 3 track masters on some of these songs, that's why the final takes from "Frankie and Johnny" and "Harum Scarum" sound so flat compared to the session outtakes.

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

Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:29 am

The BEST source for the Movie 60's Soundtracks on CD is in my opinion the COMMAND PERFORMANCE The Essential 60s Masters Vol.2, 2CD Box Set. :smt023
Hear the track Frankie And Johnny and you will know what I mean 8)

2nd., the Double Features CDs sound is great! :D

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

Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:17 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:I don't have the new set but I suspect they worked from the 1/4-inch 2 track stereo masters that were prepared for vinyl release. Unlike the raw 1/2-inch 3 track tapes, those would have been mixed and EQ'd for vinyl. That's why the outtakes from the 3 track sessions sound better.


I'm sure that's exactly right. The three-track tape would not be considered the original master tape, it is a work part. The unequalized two-track mixdown would be considered the master tape.

Lousy mixing is the issue with a lot of the mid-60s soundtracks... particularly, putting Elvis' voice far too high in the mix, with the result being that the backing track sounds flaccid and wimpy.

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

Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:39 pm

I agree that they seemed hell bent on bringing his vocal far too much to the front, even Elvis didnt like that, it therefore makes the overall sound seem weak and limp, it needs the oomph putting back, i feel then u get almost a new sound completely ...........

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

Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:09 pm

ritchie valens wrote:i still wonder if the orignal 1st generation masters have ever been used on cd?

You've asked this before, and its been answered - the 1st generation masters have been used on MANY CDs, including the Complete Masters.

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

Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:46 pm

Sorry to revive an old subject but I will state that the mono mixes on albums like Kissin Cousins sound better than the stereo. The hiss is covered up better in many cases. The songs are what they are but they are less irritating when they sound a bit clearer. So for vinyl on the post Fun In Acapulco soundtrack records try to find mono.

For CD the best bet is the Double Features series. The FTD's are better in many ways but the remixes are good for casual listening.

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

Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:31 pm

The CLASSIC ALBUM releases by FTD are meant to reproduce the original sound of the albums. They are just remastered, but not remixed.

I am pretty sure that all these soundtracks would sound a million times better, if Sony would decide to start from the scratch and re-mix the recordings. But I guess, there is not a big enough market to justify the costs. :(

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

Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:23 pm

It is strange that the sound deteriated so badly by the mid 60's, after all the Blue Hawaii album, if you like the songs or not, sounded like it was recorded just as good, and with the same consideration, as the non soundtrack sessions.

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 :?:

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

Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:42 pm

All those soundtracks were "take the money and run" rush jobs.
No care was put on the writing, performing, recording or releasing of those albums.

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

Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:55 pm

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.

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

Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:13 pm

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.


I believe that the instrumental part in "Do the clam" was 'spliced' to make it last longer. (God knows why!) :roll:

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

Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:43 pm

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.

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

Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:51 pm

HoneyTalkNelson wrote: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.


HoneyTalkNelson:

I wanted to take the chance that you posted recently to say that I really enjoy your posts and you offer a lot to this place. Thanks for all the contributions and fascinating info you always share with us! :D

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!