Date:Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:03:53 -0400
Reply-To:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
From:Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: The 35mm fad
Comments:To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Thanks Roger. I'm pretty sure those were done at Fine Recording Bayside. I will confirm that with
Cameo veterans I know.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger and Allison Kulp" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The 35mm fad
> Cameo/Parkway used 35 mm briefly http://www.bsnpubs.com/philadelphia/cameo4000.html
>
> They are decent.Not great,but decent.I have two of them.
>
> Roger
>
> Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I am trying to gather facts for what might be a web
> page maybe an article about the short but
> exciting fad of using 35mm mag-film as the original recording/mastering medium for music records
> back in the late 50's and early 60's. I have a bunch of good information on Everest, Mercury
> Living
> Presence and Command but would like to know more details about the few other studios that deployed
> 35mm and also if there were any record companies beyond Everest, Mercury, Command and later
> Project
> 3 that used this technology as a featured part of their marketing.
>
> This guy in Japan did a pretty good job collecting references to most of the Mercury Perfect
> Presence Sound series:
> http://microgroove.jp/mercury/PPS.shtml
> [BTW, the PPS series was different from the Living Presence use of 35mm in that these were
> multi-mic
> studio production albums probably set up to compete against stuff like Command's
> hifi-extravaganzas.
> Living Presence 35mm records were made like all the rest -- 3 mics to 3 tracks, editing on session
> tapes and mastering to LP with a live 3-2 mixdown so the LP master was one generation away from
> the
> session recording. The three Fennell albums were the only time Mercury classical-marketed albums
> were done with many mics in a studio-production type atmosphere. The Victor Herbert and George
> Gershwin albums were done on tape at Fine Recording in Manhattan. The Cole Porter album was done
> at
> Fine Recording Bayside (former Everest studio) on 35mm.]
>
> Note that not all PPS series albums were done on 35mm, but from this discography (which is
> basically
> lifted from Ruppli), it appears that 35mm albums were done at Fine Recording, United Recording
> (Bill
> Putnam) in Hollywood, Radio Recorders in Hollywood and maybe -- but it's not clear -- Universal
> Recording in Chicago.
>
> Later, in the mid and late 60's, Enoch Light's Project 3 made 35mm-master recordings at Fine
> Recording and later at A&R Studios in NY.
>
> I don't know if this fad was ever wider-spread -- that's what I'm hoping other listmembers might
> know.
>
> I'd also love to know details about the 35mm recording equipment and techniques at the Hollywood
> recording studios mentioned, Universal Recording and A&R. For instance, at Fine Recording the
> Westrex recording and playback EQ curves were tweaked to produce flatter extended treble response
> for music recording. I don't know if Hollywood in the early 60's operated on a standard EQ curve
> for
> 35mm recording or if Westrex machines had one curve, RCA had another, etc. Did other music-album
> recording studios tweak their film machines to have an extended/flatter top end?
>
> Finally, in case I do a web page, discography info about any Mercury albums not detailed on the
> page
> above and anything that was not on Mercury, Command, Everest or Project 3 that is a confirmed case
> of 35mm original recording/master.
>
> Thanks in advance. This fad ended up pretty short-lived among the record companies due to the high
> cost 35mm and the limited number of studios using it. But, the sensation definitely raised the
> quality bar on regular magnetic tape. Several Ampex veterans have told me that Ampex's extensive
> re-thinking and science research of magnetic recording that led to the MR-70 was because corporate
> and marketing people panic'd about 35mm's perceived superiority. The MR-70 was by all accounts an
> amazing piece of engineering and capable of superior sound to all other tape machines of the time,
> but was priced too high for the market and thus was a monetary/business failure. Once solid-state
> technology matured a bit, Ampex was able to produce the same superior electric specs and nearly as
> good mechanical specs at market-bearable prices with the AG-440. Research for the MR-70 led to
> numerous AES papers which expanded the knowledge and science of magnetic recording and tape
> recorder
> design. I'd be curious to know if there were other similar indirect fall-outs from the 35mm fad.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> PS -- for those interested, John Frayne of Westrex wrote an article for the AES Journal in 1960
> that
> gives a lot of detail about the original Everest setup. And there was a 1967 Popular Science
> article
> detailing step-by-step a Project 3 session recorded to 35mm at Fine Recording, then taking the
> album
> thru the editing, mastering and manufacturing process.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
> Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
>
