kmetal Kurt Foster audiokid

Nice vid Kyle. Thanks for sharing. ;)
I think it would be fun to write a song reminiscent of guitar cats like Eddie Cochran, Duane Eddie, or Brian Setzer, and track it there. :)

There are some very cool pieces there from the 50's, such as the Ribbon Mics, Pultecs and Altecs...

They do have some 60's stuff mixed in there as well - like the LA2's, which I think came out around '66 or so, (maybe a bit earlier, but not by much).
I'd have to do some research on the Pultec stuff, but I'm thinking early to mid 50's on those... (?)
Pultec had been around for quite sometime ( built in 1955 maybe?) before they became the "studio standard" EQ that they eventually would achieve.

The Altec gear was most likely from the 50's as well... If I can trust my eyes, I think I'm able to pick out an Altec 436 Limiter ( @1:01 in the vid, top of the rack to his left). Other possible Altec pieces from around that time would have been the RS124 and the RS114, both limiters.
Even Abbey Road was using Altec compressors and limiters very early on ... and while they got the most use at A.R. out of The Beatles' sessions from '63 and on, they had been around for a quite awhile before that, and the engineers there were using them before the Beatles were even there. I was reading about that in the book "Recording The Beatles".
One thing that I've found in my research on "classic" studio gear over the years, is how some of these pieces weren't originally developed for studio applications... for example, the Altec 436 Limiter was originally built for communications and broadcasting use. I don't know specifically how it ended up being used by audio engineers in the studio, but obviously at some point, some engineer somewhere said those four magic words: "So, what if we....?"

But, ya know what, pal?... The exact year(s) don't really matter, because they are getting that classic vintage "sound"... the sound of tape and tubes, of ribbon mics and old condensers, of metal getting hot, of slap-back tape echo; and with the Rock-a-Billy track playing in the background, you can hear that this style is certainly what they are after, and no doubt, what they are achieving.
I think we can safely assume with full confidence, that if the LA2A had been available in the 50's, it would most certainly have been used by studios on a wide scale. ;)

Addendum/Edit: PS... I did do some research on the LA2A ...It was first released in 1965. Funny thing about my search on the origins of the LA2A, though ....the first article that my Firefox search engine returned about the LA2A's origins, was written by me, LOL - a few years ago, and posted right here on RO:

https://recording.org/threads/teletronix-la2a-history-and-how-it-works.58172/

I think it's cool that RO came up within the first few returns, and it shows that this forum is indeed popular among those doing research on audio recording. ;)

FWIW
-d

Lol most likely running the air conditioner year round in that CR eh? Scoring an original in the box RCA mic could not have been at a mortal mans' price tag. I suggest this deal took place at a crossroads...

Upright bass is really cool. I've played one a couple times and it's quite unique. You can really dig in.

This whole process just displays a level of patience I rarely see anymore. Most people seem more interested in the fastest way to get finished, rather than the best method to get there - which, let's face it, often requires some trial and error, and more attention to detail.

I'm hip. ;).
I think it's probably a result of the popularity of VSTi's, and an "instant coffee" attitude, along with the ever present Fix it in the mix mindset.

People have become so accustomed to everything being immediately available that it spills over into other parts of our lives.
Instant download movies - instant drums.
Instant meals in the microwave - instant piano.
It's become what we expect.
I was reading that it took Geoff Emerick almost two hours to find the right tone for McCartney's bass on Paperback Writer ; he went through a series of C12 mic position changes, mic pattern experimenting and amp position alterations before they finally found "that" tone.
That may be an extreme example, and obviously they weren't watching the clock because of who they were, but it still showed a care and patience in getting the sound they wanted before they hit R on the tape deck.
I don't know that this care and patience exists anymore. Everyone just figures that they will record the tracks in whatever way is quickest, and then just "fix it in the mix" later.
IMHO

the methodology follows the capabilities. in the early days the only way to capture a sound was to imagine / hear it and then try to get it on disc or tape using a mic a pre and perhaps compression and e.q,. recording it to a single track. at that point that was all you could do to it. lots of tales about a master being on the train to the pressing plant the same day they were recorded. Fred Foster talked about how "'">Crying" took 3 sessions to get it right. no turd polishing.

Little Richard did a cut where they actually swung an Altec condenser mic on a boom from over the drums closer to the piano for the solo and then back while they recorded. i am fascinated by the techniques used to record those old records. On '">"Mean Ol' World", you can hear the piano but it is very obvious they didn't mic it. it was almost like what you didn't mic was as important as what you did mic. cool stuff.

I think there's a line between doing a good job, and being a buzzkill. ive seen an engineer blow the mood in the room more than once being overly concerned w the sound, relative to the project scope/budget. Client reaction ranges from unenthused to downright angry.

I've also done the converse and wasted a lot of effort and gotten not ideal results, by letting things slide, during sound check and then it ending up under the microscope later.

ive always been the type of engineer who likes to setup on a dedicated day/night before hand, either by myself or with the band. Especially at the studio. When your doing location work it is what it is and you balance inspiration w sonics. There's no reason a basic rock band can't be up and running in a couple hours, with good results. There's just something a little draining and off putting about like meeting the band, settting everything up, greasing the squeaks, and then 'starting' to record.

Good taste and sensibility goes a long way towards keeping those sessions productive, and it's not the greatest time to start doing elaborate methods.

i always worked fast. i did a ton of "3 song demos" for bands in a 6 hour block where we recorded mixed and ran copies all in 6 hours. personally i prefer to work this way. i hate all the long drawn out zero in on every element type of sessions. i prefer to listen to the recording and make adjustments as a whole.

long sessions started happening in the 60's for the most part. before that most studios would do 3 sides in 4 hour blocks. but with limited input channels to mix it was much easier (in some ways) to set up and start rolling than with a typical 16 to 20 mic set up we use these days.

Kurt Foster, post: 449752, member: 7836 wrote: i always worked fast. i did a ton of "3 song demos" for bands in a 6 hour block where we recorded mixed and ran copies all in 6 hours. personally i prefer to work this way. i hate all the long drawn out zero in on every element type of sessions. i prefer to listen to the recording and make adjustments as a whole.

long sessions started happening in the 60's for the most part. before that most studios would do 3 sides in 4 hour blocks. but with limited input channels to mix it was much easier (in some ways) to set up and start rolling than with a typical 16 to 20 mic set up we use these days.

You know the sessions at the studio which were the 3-4 song in 6 hours thing were often my best. The bands knocked it out, and there was only time for instinctually mixing. It's funny they may have a couple rough edges, but overall those came out somehow better than the EP projects that took months and months.

It's interesting to me that Nashville still does short sessions based on union specs.

I've always found having a (house) drum kit tuned and micd makes these type of things immensely faster. Doesn't mean you can't toss up a couple fun mics just for the session. But if the drummer brings his snare and kick pedal, maybe special cymbal, a band can roll in and be tracking within 15 min to an hour.

Other than that I've had good luck with just kick overhead or kick/OH/snare mics in all sorts of random rooms.

kmetal, post: 449754, member: 37533 wrote: You know the sessions at the studio which were the 3-4 song in 6 hours thing were often my best.

Because you didn't have to beat the songs to death, over analyzing every single note to the point where objectivity diminishes.
I've had those "3 songs in 4 hours" sessions myself, and if the band is rehearsed and tight, those sessions can be a lot of fun, and productive too.
Then again, I had sessions that I came away from thinking that it was four hours of my life I'd never get back. Lol
I think the key is having a room full of great players who are well-prepared, and who enjoy what they do. Those were always the best and most enjoyable sessions for me. :)
FWIW