Multitracks for Remix Revisited

[ndiamone]

For whoever I gave unmarried tracks to and whoever would like me to:

Were you ever able to lock them up and remix for surround?

Unmarried production elements is what used to happen a lot in the 50's and 60s when we only had 2 tracks of quarter-inch tape or 3 tracks of half inch tape.

The first (half-inch 3-track) reel would have 3 discrete tracks of orchestra/band.
Mix that down to mono and lay it on a 2nd reel. This leaves 2 open tracks.

On the second reel record 2 tracks of backup singers or additional sidemen.
Mix the additions down to mono and lay both tracks onto a 3rd reel leaving one track open.

Record the lead vocal or soloist on the remaining track and mix down to mono (or stereoesque: orch in the middle backup/sidemen on the right and lead vocal on left).

Now 40, 50 years later we find all these individual original production elements.
Trouble is, tape not being film, they will never lock up in sync.

Which means you have to start off with the discrete orchestral tracks and then by digitally stretching and shrinking individual phrases by sometimes miniscule fractions of (musical) cents, match the 2 original tracks of backup/sidemen and one track of lead/soloist tracks to the music bed. It's A Looooooooong Teeeedious Process. But the results are always interesting.

The reason behind using the orchestral bed as `God' and matching everything else to that, is simply the chances of having big spaces inbetween phrases. Soloists and sidemen have to breathe the same as anybody, resulting in silent spots, so their discretely-recorded overdub parts will be easier to split up into sections and re-time individually to the orchestral master, which will presumably have few if any completely silent spots. The only problem with that is, sometimes there are a few different takes of what is known as Composite Overdubs.

For example....

Say you have multiple overdubs onto an original monaural orchestral track, which you also have.
First overdub is the bass singer in a quartet. Half a dozen takes. Take 3 is the Master
Second overdub is the baritone. Half a dozen takes and take 5 is the master.
Third overdub is the second tenor. Half a dozen takes and take 6 is the master
Fourth overdub is the first tenor, half a dozen takes and Take 2 is the master.

Well, what if you had 2nd OD's take 4, 3rd OD's take 2 and 4th OD take 5 separately, not in the mixdown?

You'd have the same bass singer, but different baritone takes, different second tenor takes and different first tenor takes.
So you could center/re-time the four sets of vocal overdubs by keeping the bass singer firmly centered by doing zillions of edits and section re-timings one word or phrase at a time. When you were done, nobody would know you didn't have three microphones recording a quartet all live.

And remix for Surround.

Having fun yet?

I have plenty of non-copyrighted music publishing house demos from now-defunct publishing houses that anybody can play around with if they want. (like the one described in the paragraph just above) Some come in two parts (tracks on one part and vocals on the next part and that's it) and others are more interesting and take up the full spectrum described above.

Drop me a line if you want MP3's of any of this stuff sent via email.

 

[JonUrban]

Which means you have to start off with the discrete orchestral tracks and then by digitally stretching and shrinking individual phrases by sometimes miniscule fractions of (musical) cents, match the 2 original tracks of backup/sidemen and one track of lead/soloist tracks to the music bed. It's A Looooooooong Teeeedious Process. But the results are always interesting.

Is that why it never works when folks try and record a Q8 using a stereo setup, then try and sync the fronts and the backs to get quad? People have tried this a lot and it never seems to work. There are always variences within the music. @:@:

 

[ndiamone]

Is that why it never works when folks try and record a Q8 using a stereo setup, then try and sync the fronts and the backs to get quad?

Absolutely.

Since conventional tape and conventional players have no way of being synched so that each tape pass remains exactly like the ones before and since, there will always be continuous and variable usually miniscule speed differences, not only from playback take to playback take, but continuously throughout each playback take.

The only place instant sync works other than via elements being on magnetic or optical sound film, is the Plangent Process by Jaime Howarth.

All tape has a continuous-pilot-tone signal recorded along with and above the music frequency by the recording head. This tone, called the Bias records every single speed variation no matter how small, throughout the original session tape only. Safety dubs, mixdowns and duplication masters will have their own bias channel, as bias cannot be carried over from one recorder to the next. The Plangent Process reads this bias tone and records it in ultrahigh definition on what would normally be reserved for a video signal along with the audio in question. This is then popped into the computer all at the same time and over many hours, the music can be rendered, resolving to the bias tone and eliminating all the miniscule speed variations.

However, since Q-8's and Q-4's are dubdowns of dubdowns of duplication masters of safety masters of original session tapes, there are that many biases overlapping on one another. So that's why two passes of the same tape can never resolve by themselves.

If the original sound stems are recorded not on multitrack tape, but on perforated sound-only 35-MM film then different sound elements of the same take can be resolved mechanically with ease, without the need for bias-tone resolution. Film motors are genlocked together so they all run exactly the same speed for the exact same length of time and remain perfectly in sync. So it's easy the way they lock up stereo remixes for films recorded WAY before stereo was perfected. However, trying to genlock a tape recorder to itself, nevermind other recorders is VERY difficult if not impossible, hence the need for bias-tone resolution programs like the Plangent Process by Jaime Howarth.

Of course, the success of that is counting on the original 35-MM sound stems remaining in perfect day-of-recording condition. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case, and when this type of shrunken and or stretched sound film elements are presented, the Howarth process must be used anyway in order to restore a close approximation of the original sound.

In the very earliest days of sound, there were multiple microphonic or phonographic angles the same way as there were multiple camera angles. Since there were no isolation booths, and only mono recorders in those days, the only way to capture even a semi-discrete sound was to have each element (strings, brass, piano, vocal, woodwinds, etc) each recorded through it's own microphone through it's own line to its' own monaural track recorded on it's own individual 35-MM optical or magnetic film recorder. However, the degree of crosstalk and bleed-through from one angle to the next made it impossible to completely isolate any one element enough to replace it later, as would be possible some years later with multitrack tape.

Instead, the original on-set pianist would play his piano barely loud enough to be heard by the singers without being picked up by their microphones half a block away on the other side of the stage. Then those vocal tracks along with the very softly played `scratch' piano track were saved to orchestrate the number with later on. For a good visual of this, watch the Matt Dillon scene in `Grace of My Heart: The Carole King Story' with Illeanna Douglas where he helps Denise record her first single. He has a pianist come in and play real soft, she sings along, they take that into the studio, orchestrate it and she comes back later on and sings the full complete production lead vocal afterward that will be on the finished record.

Overdubs? Take out the original 3rd trumpet and fill in a new one? Forget it. There wasn't enough isolation back then. The only way overdubs could really be done in those days was like the scene in Singin' in the Rain where Lena's (Jean Hagen) voice is so horrible they hire Kathy (Debbie Reynolds) to sing and talk for her, completely replacing the entire original recording, orchestra and all, even up til the film's opening night in the hilarious and touching finale of the picture.

Orchestral recordings in those days, were all done live all at once til they got the take to sound the way they wanted. And there's no editing inbetween takes either, not unless it was AFTER the final mix down to Mono, because you could have a hundred different microphonic or phonographic angles all going all at the same time.

So to record or mix down, you had like you have at ToddAO/Glenn Glenn Sound (Liberty-Livewire Productions) in Hollywood and you have up to 100 different 35-MM (in those days, monaural optical, later 6-track magnetic) record and playback units alll up and down the hall outside the recording theatre which usually was the size of a large gymnasium. And I mean ALLLL up and down the hall. Up and down the stairs. Around the corner. Up in the lobby Two or three in the sound booth, ad infinitum.

So along comes the new millennium and a new interest in old films and guess what? A lot of these old multiple microphonic and phonographic angles survive, in many cases enough to remix at least some kind of stereo master, or even 5.1 like for Singin' in the Rain. What's funny in that remix, is, of course the takes used for the stereo remix are not the same take as in the monaural comp available previously. They're all from 35-MM optical and magnetic sources, so they'll sync up perfectly with no work whatsoever if it's the same take. So they had to use alternates, playing each one against picture to see which of the stereo alternate takes they had matched up best with the lip sync. In some cases, the lip sync is better on the alternate take than in the master comp. Take a look for yourself say, off laserdiscs of both.

But the odd thing is, sometimes pieces of songs are missing their original angles. So, like in the case of Broadway Rhythm/Gotta Dance in Singin' in the Rain, the beginning section is in full stereo/5.1, the middle solo dance part by Gene Kelly dancing to the saxophone solo with the brass band is stone flat mono, the Gotta Dance chorus part after that has two chorus angles panned left and right on top of the original stone flat mono orchestral track, and the end part is back to being full stereo/5.1 All within the space of about five minutes.

Or sometimes they only have two sources and they do the best they can.

Liisten to the new DVD 5.1 remix of Bing Crosby's White Christmas. The original vocal angles are gone, as are all the original pre-mixdown recording angles. What they have left is a low-fidelity optical composite monaural N,D,M&E mix (narration,dialog music and effects,) and a high fidelity magnetic monaural music-only mixdown. So they mix the high fidelity music-only mixdown back in with the low fidelity optical comp to get something resembling Hi Fi Mono and use that for the front center track. Then they isolate the music-only mixdown, add a little reverb to it and place THAT music-only track in all surround tracks, leaving the comp and the M&E mix in the front center.

Or for another look at unmixed 2-track sources, examine the 50th anniversary laserdisc of The Wizard of Oz with the Multi-Audio. One track is the comp, and the other track is the isolated M&E. All the musical numbers are all in sync on both tracks, but as soon as a number is over it goes back to being split comp/M&E. However, the splits are ever so slightly out of step with each other.

So all you budding sync-up artists can take those 2 tracks, pop them into AA or SF or whatever and resync so they are not preverbs of each other. Then split the M&E into a twin-track, add a little reverb to the M&E and pan it to the surrounds (or flip over the phase 90-degrees out left for the left channel and 90-degrees out right for the right channel). Pop that back into the Multitrack Mix, add the monaural N,D,M&E comp back in, adjust levels til surrounds can BARELY be heard in the headphones, and then take it up a little bit from there and mixdown.

Drop that in over the new restored picture on the THX LaserDisc (vs. the one taken from a IB Technicolor show print presented with the Multi-Audio) and Poof. The Wizard of Oz in THX Stereo Surround.

But as music engineering abilities and technologies improved throughout the 60's and 70's before Dolby Stereo, engineers were still recording angles one at a time simultaneously on multiple recorders, but this time the microphone placements were done with an ear toward at least later stereo remix if not surround.

The original Willy Wonka with Gene Wilder is a prime example. Notice, they used very little of the Paramount `Original Cast-Soundtrack' LP studio sessions done prior to filming, when they remixed for Dolby Stereo 25th Anniversary. These were only used in very short pieces that blended well enough with the original sound angles they had on hand to use as drop-ins to avoid a Singin' in the Rain scenario described above.

A better example is the stereo-surround remix of On a Clear Day, You Can See Forever with Barbra Streisand. Since Streisand is such a perfectionist, and since she was a big enough diva by 1970, she made them do all the pre-records and the resulting musical-number production all in a studio designed for making records, not scoring for film. This worked only because of course musical numbers in films HAVE to be pre-recorded so that the performers can lip sync to them on the filming set. However, since the stereo surround remix of all the musical numbers had to be taken from the original 2-inch multitrack tape, even in the stereo-surround remix, due to the increased isolation of individual instruments when recording multitrack for records, vs. all the crosstalk and bleed-through when recording film-style, the numbers still sound very claustrophobic as if they were intended for a quadraphonic album release. Of course, the underscoring music was recorded conventionally, so the Dolby Surround remix of the underscore sounds as if the mix originally belonged that way, with lots of natural air and space.

Other guys may have other interesting tales of reconstructed stereo/5.1 mixes they may wish to share.

Have fun.

 

[EMB]

The mixes you cite are very 'unnatural' sounding to these ears, and not just because stereo--let alone 5.1--often seems out of place being heard for vintage films most of us got used to in monaural. Seems to me many of these are an audio equivalent of 'jumping through hoops' just for the sake of being able to claim 'remastered in 5.1 sound!,' as if crappy 5.1 were preferable to the more honest mono mix that played not only in theaters but on television, and earlier home video editions. And of course, beyond any other consideration, the bitch is in synching everything up just right, easier said that done.

Even so, many contrived 5.1 mixes make for interesting--if often disconcerting--listening. MGM/UA had been experimenting with this for years with OZ and GWTW, among others; Disney has done the same thing with some of its films as well(not sure what the story is with Paramount's SHANE, should really give that another listen). My only real concern is when a vintage movie is reissued in 5.1, but the original mono sound track is not included--which I consider to be fairly negligent, even artistically criminal. Unfortunately some studios think 5.1 is some kind of necessity, even if the available elements to fashion such a mix are dubious at best, incomplete or subject to using alternate material. Not exactly my idea of 'film preservation.'

ED

 

[ndiamone]

The mixes you cite are very 'unnatural' sounding to these ears...

These ears as well. Nobody said the stereo and 5.1 was any better, just different. Look at Whipped Cream: Re Whipped. Is that any better than the original or just different and interesting for it's technological prowess, i.e. having a performance star the technology rather than the performance itself? And how ``correct'' is that: having a performance star the remix engineer?

...Stereo---let alone 5.1...seems out of place...for vintage films most of us got used to in monaural....Many of these are...as if crappy 5.1 were preferable to the more honest mono mix that played...in theaters, on television, and (in) earlier home video editions.

Or what about stereo remix pop singles for Time-Life box sets? How `honest' is that? (as Billy Mays) `Hear Such and Such a Record: The Original Hit Version in Stereo for the First Time Ever cuz We Just Found the Master Session Tape Propping Up a Desk or Being Used as a Wall Clock and We Thought it could Make Us Some Money!'

My only real concern is when a vintage movie is reissued in 5.1, but the original mono sound track is not included--which I consider to be fairly negligent, even artistically criminal. Unfortunately some studios think 5.1 is some kind of necessity, even if the available elements to fashion such a mix are dubious at best, incomplete or subject to using alternate material.

Yup. That's why almost everytime they remix and remaster one of these, they always leave at least one audio copy on the disc of the original untouched monaural mix, sometimes cleaned up from hiss, ticks and pops. When they don't, they figure whoever has the program already has the original mono mix and can go listen to that if they choose, and then they bought this remix just to hear if they think it's any good or not.

Large retailers in big cities like L A San Francisco New York or Chicago with lots of film buffs gauge whether a title has been done right by, from how many of a particular remix title have been returned. Enough come back and they recall the title and remix yet again.

And as far as using alternate material, take a look at our friends on the Both Sides Now reconstructed stereo blog board. Guys have been doing re-timings and re-syncs for years ever since digital music workstations became affordable in order to remix supposedly mono material into something resembling stereo.

Sometimes, as you say, it's only an alternate take, recorded minutes or hours before or hence from the master take, sounding pretty much the same, and they just transfer that as it is and remix.

And...the bitch is in synching everything up just right, easier said that done.

Other times, as you also said, it's `piecemealed' together from different non-master-take elements that sound too different from the master we all know.They just got lucky that these elements just happen to sync, sometimes after countless hours of work, well enough so that the mass record or movie buying public cannot tell it's been `juiced'.

When the original music masters were recorded on multi-track tape as in the 70's when multiple 6-track mag recorders up and down the hall began to fall into disuse, then, yes, you go back to having to sync multiple takes off multiple reels. But earlier, if all the music element stems are indeed from the same take, they sync perfectly on multiple optical or mag 35-MM playback units, except in the event of original film element damage discussed above.

Not exactly my idea of 'film preservation.' ED

Nor is it mine, the same as colorization of a black and white film which they do for the same reason as remixing to stereo: selling more copies of a moviie to people that already have it. But on the other hand, choices are always good. At least all the film teachers will buy `em all, just to they can laugh at the transfers and remix attempts at some of `em.