Joe BoydNick Drake, Fairport Convention, R.E.M., more...

Bob PowerSeminal NYC Hip-Hop engineer

SonicraftSteve Puntolillo’s obsession with sonics

Jace Lasek/Dave SmithMontreal’s Breakglass Studio

Mike CastoroIn Behind The Gear

TapeOpConGear ReviewsCD Reviews

$ 4 . 5 0

N o . 6 0

J u l y / A u g

2 0 0 7

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED:POB 160995, SAC, CA 95816

The Creative Music Recording Magazine

12 Letters20 TapeOpCon wrap-up22 Mike Castoro in Behind the Gear26 Jace Lasek and Dave Smith: Breakglass30 Joe Boyd42 Bob Power50 Steve Puntolillo & Sonicraft58 Gear Reviews78 CD Revews82 The End Rantp

ag

eHello and welcometo Tape Op#

Okay, for those of you following my misadventures over the latest issues,here’s an update. We finished moving Jackpot! (my crazy studio) into ournew Hamptone digs in Portland at the beginning of June. What do they sayabout doubling time and money when you build a house or start a business?It was like that. Ouch. The studio is now open, and studio manager Kendradid the first tracking with a BBC radio session for The Gossip. Engineers aregiving it a favorable review, so we’re relieved. What was weird for me was tonot be the first engineer to track there, as Jenna and I had to hit the roadto get back to Arizona to our home and then to Tucson for the sixth andfinal TapeOpCon. “Final?” you ask? Check out the TapeOpCon recap this issue.Now we’re off to host Jackpot!’s 10 year anniversary and opening party.Eventually will all this settle down? I’m not even sure how the mag gets doneat this point. Just kidding.

My pal Dave Allen recently (via his website www.pampelmoose.com)recently turned me ontoThe Long Tail, a concept noted byWiredMagazine’s Chris Anderson (and recently in book form as The Long Tail: Whythe Future of Business is Selling Less of More, published by Hyperion). Theidea is that in media there are the “hit” products with mass sales (the greenpart of the chart above) and then the “non-hit” products with less sales (theyellow part to the right). What he’s noticed is that companies like Netflixand Amazon are selling more volume of the “non-hit” products. This ishappening with online music retail and downloads as well. And this is thetheory that I always had in my mind about Tape Op.

Most of the music being recorded in the world is being done in low (no?)to mid budget recording scenarios. This might seem obvious, but elevenyears ago when I would look at the cover of other magazines and see somebrand new room with a $250,000 console that I would never be able to setfoot in, I knew that there was a world of music recording that was beingignored. My friends and I were all making records with great local engineersand studios, and some of us recorded releases at home on out-of-date gear.Eleven years on it seems more obvious than ever that great music can comefrom many different places - and as an avid music fan I’m happier than everabout that. Bring on The Long Tail. It’s where most of us really live.www.thelongtail.com

Larry Crane, Editor

60!

The Creative Music Recording Magazine

EditorLarry Crane

Publisher & Graphic DesignJohn Baccigaluppi

UK and European PublisherAlexander Lawson and Nadia Osta

Contributing Writers & PhotographersCover design by Scott McChane (scott@scottmcchane.com)

Christine Wilhelmy, John Cuniberti, Eric Masunga, Mark B. Christensen, JJ Golden,Craig Schumacher, Russ Berger, Maureen Droney, Francis Manzella,

George Massenburg, Sally Browder, Ross Hogarth, Eric Ambel, Mark Rubel,Don Zientara, Joe Chicccarelli, Steve Silverstein, Skid Severson, Debbie Daking,

Mike Jasper, Max Cooper, Martin Horn, Alissa Anderson, Allen Farmelo, Ronald Porty,David Weiss, Virginia Kamenitzer, Joel Hamilton, Mark Warren, Tony SanFilippo,

Terry Setter, Scott Craggs, Pete Weiss, Dana Gumbiner, Jeff Elbel,Josh Peck, and Barry Hufker.

Internet Designers and ProductionHillary Johnson <Hillary@tapeop.com>, AJ Wilhelm

Editorial and Office AssistantsCaitlin Gutenberger, Jenna Sather, Holly Abney, Kendra Wright

Tape Op ConferenceCraig Schumacher, Director: Craig@tapeop.com

DisclaimerTAPE OP magazine wants to make clear that the opinions expressed within reviews, letters andarticles are not necessarily the opinions of the publishers. Tape Op is intended as a forum to

advance the art of recording, and there are many choices made along that path.Editorial Office

(for submissions, letters, CDs for review. CDs for review are alsoreviewed in the Sacramento office, address below)

P.O. Box 14517, Portland, OR 97293 ph/fx (503) 232-6047editor@tapeop.com

All submissions and letters sent to us become the property of Tape Op.

AdvertisingPro Audio, Studios & Record Labels: John Baccigaluppi

(916) 444-5241, (John@tapeop.com)Pro Audio & Ad Agencies:

Laura Thurmond/Thurmond Media Group206-526-0056, (laura@tapeop.com)

Printing: Matt Saddler & Chuck Werninger@ Democrat Printing, Little Rock, ARPrePress in Sacto: Scott McChane

Subscriptions are free in the USA:Subscribe on line at www.tapeop.com

(Notice: We sometimes rent our subscription list to our advertisers.)Canadian & Foreign subscriptions, see instructions at www.tapeop.comCirculation, Subscription and Address Changes

Will be accepted by e-mail or mail only. Please do not telephone.We have an online change of address form <www.tapeop.com> or you can

e-mail <circulation@tapeop.com> or send snail mail toPO Box 160995. Sacramento, CA 95816

See www.tapeop.com for Back Issue ordering info

Postmaster and all general inquiries to:Tape Op Magazine

PO Box 160995, Sacramento, CA 95816(916) 444-5241 www.tapeop.com

Tape Op is published by Single Fin, Inc. (publishing services)and Jackpot! Recording Studio Inc. (editorial services)

Gear Reviews EditorAndy “Gear Geek” Hong

Recording Tips EditorGarrett Haines

10/Tape Op#60/Masthead

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/11

Thanks for getting Tape Op to ourshores here in the UK. I read it cover tocover - I just couldn’t put it down. Thanks for a greatread, not just great gear reviews. Its nice to see youstill appreciate ears and warm EQs in the USA, ratherthan bit depth and DC to light frequency response. Isuppose I just don’t want to spend the rest of my lifein front of a computer monitor! All the bestand jolly good show.Dow Fereday <www.ltsstudio.co.uk>

I am hoping you can clarify something for me. Ihave been doing a lot of “creating” within Mac’sGarageBand, using loops and samples from the JamPacks. From the documents I have read, these loopsand samples are all royalty free with regard tocompositions and creations I make. I’m not trying to“get by” with anything unethical or illegal - I just wantto be sure that I am understanding this correctly. Ihave a CD ready to release on a small “indie scale”. DoI need to say that the cuts were all created inGarageBand? If so, do I have to get permission to usethe name GarageBand to acknowledge them?Marc Jonathan Haney <fretsntracks@hotmail.com>

Essentially, a user can use the content provided withGarageBand or the Jam Packs (instruments and loops)royalty-free as part of their own original compositionsand productions. The user just can’t re-sell the loops.Here’s what our Software License Agreement says:“Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. This Licenseallows you to install and use one copy of the AppleSoftware on a single computer at a time. You may usethe Apple and third party audio loop content (“AudioContent”), contained in or otherwise included with theApple Software, on a royalty-free basis, to create yourown original soundtracks for your video and audioprojects. You may broadcast and/or distribute your ownsoundtracks that were created using the Audio Content,however, individual samples, sound sets, or audio loopsmay not be commercially or otherwise distributed on astandalone basis, nor may they be repackaged in wholeor in part as audio samples, sound libraries, soundeffects or music beds.” The entire GarageBand/JamPack Software License Agreement is located here:http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/garagebandjam.pdfChristine Wilhelmy, PR Program Manager ProApplications <www.apple.com>

There’s nothing requiring the user to creditGarageBand or Apple whenever they release a song withone of their loops.Alan Korn <aakorn@igc.org>

Chris and Larry, I just readyour question [about lowend perception and mixing]and Larry’s response.Monitoring is definitely partof the problem. This is asituation that plagues manyhome and prosumer recordists.

The dinosaur’s answer is actually a question: Why is thisa new problem? In the dark ages of tape, (usually at 30ips) the low end was limited by the medium, about 45 Hzand you were gone. Also, studios had large monitors thattypically had two 15” speakers on each side, andsomewhat well-designed rooms where you could actuallyhear 40 Hz. We had well designed HVAC that were prettyquiet and were naturally protected from this situation.Now digital recorders can typically record flat to 10 Hz,while small monitors maybe get you to 80 Hz. The resultis that it is extremely easy to record lots of trash in thelow end fromHVAC, foot shuffling, and other general crap,without ever being able to hear it. This translates into alot of useless energy in the bottom and worse, harmonicsan octave or two higher. There is a simple cure, and it’scalled the high pass filter. Unless you are recordingsomething with real low end (low E on a standard tunedbass guitar is 41.2 Hz), ditch the bottom. As a generalrule, use a 50 Hz HPF [high pass filter] on everythingunless it actually messes with the sound. You will findthat much of the mysterious “mud” is gone.Geoff Daking <www.daking.com>

I’ve done this ever since getting my first semi-decentconsole. When mixing, I generally use HPFs oneverything except kick drum, toms, top snare, bassguitar, low organ parts and such. Be careful that youaren’t running the source through an HPF when trackingand again at mixing - this can thin out the sound toomuch sometimes. Why I forgot to mention this last issueI’ll never know! Thanks Geoff! -LC

I was just reading the interview with Lincoln Fong in#59, and I have to say I was struck by something inparticular in one of his responses. When talking about hiswork on Dirty Three’s Whatever You Love, You Are, hementions how his method “would’ve been to go and geta better drum kit and then ask him to tune it.” I thinkthis is a perfect example of how sometimes even thingswhich don’t fit some kind of working norm or standardwith regard to recording or the sound of an instrument ingeneral really contribute to the character of a recording.As a drummer, as a fan of Dirty Three and as a fan ofmusicin general, it’s the little quirks and idiosyncrasies ofrecords like this [and others] that really make them worthlistening to. While I’m sure not anyone can walk into astudio and get a good recording of a drum kit, I do knowthat Fong’s work on this record makes it a record I enjoylistening to, and I think a lot of that also has to do withthe sounds he captures. Not having a “better drum kit”makes this record sound the way it does, and I for one amgrateful that things like this exist in the world. Whilemaybe it wasn’t the optimal situation at the time, itserves the music and at the end of the day I think that’sall any of us can hope to do.Nicholas Decarmine <slowdynamite.com>

I am trying to learn about recording. I have takenclasses and read several texts, but there are a lot ofthings I have forgotten because I don’t use themeveryday, and there are many things I have notlearned about yet. I read your magazine and find theinformation in it very valuable, but there are manythings I still don’t understand yet as I have not dealtwith them directly - throw in the myriad of equipmentthat is available, and I hope you can imagine how abeginner can become quite confused. I was hopingyou could do something like a “beginner’s page”where you took an item and explained it, how andwhen it would be used, how it would be connectedand whether it goes to hardware or a softwareprogram, etc. Maybe when gear is reviewed this typeof information could be done as a footnote orsomething. Even some of the ads don’t have anyinformation, and it’s hard to support your advertiserswhen you don t know what the equipment does. As anexample, I see mic preamps going for thousands ofdollars, but it talks about one input. Does that meanthat for eight inputs, I need eight units? I realize thatthese things may be basic information for mostreaders, but as a beginner I look to magazines likeyours to learn from. I was just hoping that you mightbe able to put in a little more info for the beginner,as I’m sure there are other folks besides myself thatwould benefit from this info.Dan Cameron <Cameron.Daniel@Charter.net>

I’ve thought about this situation in the past. Can wemake a magazine that speaks to the beginner and theseasoned pro? I think we already do, but here’s thecatch: Someone starting at the bottom will have to doa bit of homework to catch up. When I startedrecording music, I was driven. I read every book at thelibrary, bought a few more and read every mag I couldfind. When I didn’t understand something I would takenotes, and then look for the answers in my books. Thesedays you could just Google the question, dig through aforum (careful about posting “newbie” questionsunless you have thick skin or read the stickies!) or lookfor sites with tons of knowledge collected (I’ve seen abunch of these). But the most important part, just likeany learning experience, is to apply the knowledge toreal world situations and to do this on a regular basis.And that means to record all the time.By the way, if a mic pre has one channel then you

need one pre per mic to record simultaneous sources,like a drum set for example. Here’s a real simpleexplanation for an audio path: Source > mic or DI >preamp (but not if DI is line level out) > recordingmedium (tape deck, DAW or standalone device >mixer (could be within DAW or console) > monitorcontroller (could be part of console or DAWinterface) > speakers or headphones. Post preamp orpost recording medium (or console insert) you canplace EQ, compression and such. Add extra channelsup into the recording medium for more tracks in, andchannels between the medium and mixer (or internalmixing in a DAW or standalone device) for moretracks to mix with. I hope this helps! -LC

Respond to Tape Op:Editor@tapeop.com

12/Tape Op#60/Letters

I wanted to respond to one of Larry’s answers in#59. Jeff Boller wrote about a program calledREAPER. He hyped it up and talked about its benefits,and he also spoke of the benefits that are involved inworking with a company like Cockos Software (whomakes REAPER). Larry responded with a dismissal of“That sounds like a great solution for you Jeff, andREAPER looks pretty cool, but try telling a potentialclient for your commercial studio that you don’t havePro Tools and that they need to use ‘REAPER’instead.” I think Larry missed the majority of thepoint of Boller’s email. It’s that kind of attitude - the“Pro Tools is the best-and-only software to use. Allother software pales in comparison. Pro Tools can dono wrong” - that makes Pro Tools the only softwarethat people will use or even respond to. The pointBoller was making was not that “Everyone should tryREAPER, it’s the next big thing!” but rather, “If othercompanies would take a hint from companies likeCockos Software, and actually respond to theircustomers’ needs instead of just assuming they knowbest, then there would be a more level playing field.”Eventually, some software company is going to doeverything so right, in terms of both productivity,quality of software and customer service, that the“industry standard” is going to change, and if PT isn’ton top of its game, it’s going to lose its status. It’shappened before, and it will happen again, and it’salways the underdog (like Cockos) that makes a bigpush in the end.Brandon <mr.walkaway@gmail.com>

In my response (which I should have elaborated onand didn’t consider a “dismissal”) I wasn’t saying thatPro Tools is the best or the worst, but was insteadillustrating that in the commercial recording world it’svery hard to introduce a new recording system or to sellyour business without adopting whatever product, goodor bad, that is in vogue. Believe me, coughing up$15,000-plus for Pro Tools was not something I wantedto do, but to stay compatible with other studios and togive our clients what they were requesting, I felt like Ihad to go to PT HD. Andy and I are curious about andhave been keeping an eye on REAPER, so I hope to seea review in Tape Op soon. -LC

I didn’t get to thank you and John yet forpublishing my question about recording uprightpianos - as well as the incredible myriad of responsesto my question! Since posing that question to you Ihave discovered some pretty incredible sounds andhave experimented a bit with everything from theangle of the piano to the wall, the distance of thepiano to the wall, to using a 1950s vulcanizedrubber-coated contact microphone designed formic’ing the soundboard of pianos and other stringedinstruments - really interesting results. I will sendyou a copy of the album I am recording for an artistnamed Jonathan Bell once he presses and releases it.I am very proud of the sounds this 115 year-old pianocan make (with a great human player, of course), thatI have captured. I look forward to trying some of thesuggestions from your magazine.Brendan Davies <almostjune@gmail.com>

I worked out of Atlantic Studios’ productiondepartment from ’86 to its demise in March ’03, and didCD mastering for most of those years, among thenumerous other WEA projects necessary for a prominentcompany such as ours. We were the East Coastequivalent of our West Coast sister Warner BrothersStudios. My specialty was back-catalog remastering forCD. That, among other things, included the A to Dtransfer from (hopefully) the original master tape, EQ’ing(I never used a compressor for back-catalog releases),formatting for the newmedium (CD), etc. I seem to havequite a fan club for the work I did back then (seeSteveHoffman.tv). One thing, though. I was lucky to getmy mastering credits printed anywhere in/on theprinting of these reissues. It was like I didn’t exist. Thereare many possible reasons for that. One: Why spend $$$on changing the label copy? Another: Who really knewwho the mastering engineer was in thegraphics/printing end of production/manufacturing?Who even knew that there was a mastering engineer?“These things happen by themselves,” maybe theythought. Or perhaps the timing wasn’t right, not enoughtime to get the engineer’s name before the release date.Who knew why, but I was lucky to get my name on oneout of ten releases. Pathetic. Forget the fact that thestudio manager got every single release from thecompany mailed to his door while the engineers wereallowed a certain number of freebies. But that’s a whole‘nother story. I like your mag. It talks whenothers are quiet, informs where there areblackouts, excites where others chug...Zal Schreiber <ZalSchreiberEng@hotmail.com>

Letters (continued on page 14)/Tape Op#60/13

There was one piece of advice that didn’t entirelyregister at the time, but which comes back to me againand again: One of your interviewees said: “An engineershould always be clean.” That seemed like an oddstatement, but the idea kept nagging me in the back of mymind. People invest a lot of trust in recording engineers -you expect your grocer, your banker, your doctor, yourcongressman to be clean... Duh! Of course! An engineershould always be clean! As a beleaguered parent who getsup at the crack of dawn and feeds, dresses and rushes hischildren to school before dashing to the studio, I havetended to let personal hygiene take a back seat toexpediency. But now in the morning, I say to myself, “Doyou really want to go to work with your hair a mess andthat stubble all over your face? How will that stained shirtplay with the artist or the producer?” The best message anengineer can send his or her client is that he/she isdedicated, serious and professional about his/her work.Being clean gets you half the way there, while beingrumpled and disheveled puts you at a disadvantage rightaway. I have tried it for a few months now, and it works!The best engineering tip I’ve everread. Thanks for a great magazine!Jon Gordon <www.jongordon-music.com>

Suggestion # 18 in “What Makes A Good RecordingEngineer?” - Tape Op Sept/Oct 2006. I said, “Keep theequipment and yourself clean at all times. Dirty equipmentis a bad sign. A dirty engineer is even worse.” Keepingyourself and your equipment clean is a sign that you takepride in yourself, your work and respect the people aroundyou. Nobody wants to sit next to someone in a small, badlyair-conditioned room for ten hours who hasn’t taken ashower in a few days. Given the fact that you may be undersome stress or occasionally step outside for a smoke couldalso promote an odor that can quickly fill a control room.Perfume, cologne or scented deodorant are also notwelcomed in a small hot room. If you notice everyoneleaving the room when you walk in this could be yourproblem, not your ideas.John Cuniberti <reamp.com>

I was a bit surprised at your response (or lack ofresponse) to the two questions about creating bettersounding MP3s in #59’s letters section. I think these arevalid questions and would be a great subject for feedbackfrom the Tape Op peanut gallery. My guess is that thereare many readers who create MP3 and AAC files on aregular basis for any number of reasons. For me, I useMP3s to collaborate with people via email and I’ve evenbeen asked to provide MP3 format files for low-budget/no-budget movie projects. Recently I’ve beenthinking about posting demos, outtakes and works-in-progress on my band’s website in MP3 and AAC formats.I think this is a great way to share some stuff thatotherwise wouldn’t see the light of day and it’d be niceif it sounded good. While I’ve done some research andwriting about this myself, it’s become really obvious tome lately that there’s a lot more to this than justcreating higher bit rate and/or variable bit rate files.Getting some insight into creating better sounding mixesand masters for compressed formats would be a greatthing for a lot of us.Cliff Truesdell <cliff@masteringdigitalaudio.com>

MP3/AAC encoders tend to seek out and favor short,bright transients, so even imperceptibly tiny clicks fromdigital edits - which may be obscured by rhythm hits in afinal mix - can suddenly jump out when compressed. Be sureto use zero crossings for all edits when possible.Eric Masunaga <www.modstudioarts.com>

Apart from the obvious differences in the sound of thedifferent types and resolutions of data compressionalgorithms, I don’t think there is any “magic formula”involved in making a better sounding MP3 or AAC. When I wasworking with the iTunes folks on their iTunes Originals series,I asked the same question and was told that since their datacompression algorithm was specifically designed to usecommercially available CDs as its starting point, the best wayto get a great sounding “data compressed” mix, was to makea great sounding mix in the first place. I have noticed thattracks that are overly aggressively brick wall limited inmastering sound proportionally worse when data compressed.Doin’ the volume wars thing on your mix not only makes yourmaster overly crispy, but it makes your MP3s suck too.Mark B. Christensen <engineroomaudio.com>

I think you had the answer in Larry’s initial response.Make the best quality mix/master that you can. Beyondthat it’s in the hands of the end user and the limitationsof their playback mediums. I’d like to know what theseitems are that have “become really obvious.” I know that’snot the answer you’re looking for, but I think in order toaddress this question correctly, we need to know what youdon’t like about MP3s.JJ Golden <www.goldenmastering.com>

I can’t quote John’s whole comment about A&R people andartists developing from his Bright Eyes’ review in issue #59because it’s too long. You’ll have to trust me on its content, orpull out the last issue. John’s comment really bothers mebecause I have a hard time with the idea that artists need anA&R rep holding their hand tomature artistically. Personally, I’mreally excitedby the idea that artists havebeen freed fromhand-holding, and left with the responsibilities of artistic growth fullyin their own control. Obviously, I admire Conor’s commercialsuccess, to say nothing of his charismatic stage persona andliterate lyrical sense - my comments do not address this BrightEyes record, which I haven’t heard. I am excited by more artiststaking control of every part of their work and careers, ending thevery role-based separation thatmyyears of reading leftist theoryhave attempted to persuade me is the root of all evil (for anexample relating to music, see Chris Cutler’s writing about theResidents in File Under Popular). I hear plenty of recent recordswith the type of artistic breadth that John praises. Living inChicago and now New York, I’ve also found it surprisingly easyto find insanely talented musicians who work for far less thanthey deserve to help bring such records into existence (and havebeen lucky enough to record folks who’ve collaborated witheveryone from Keith Rowe to Kevin Ayers as a result). I’mobviously saddened for many reasons that it’s gotten far harderto sell such records in this country (and harder as an Americanconsumer to find them), but it doesn’tmakemeany less gratefulthat more artists control their own fates without hand-holdingor “guidance”, and it doesn’t make me long for the return ofbusiness people with some sort of parental role in “artisticgrowth”. I’d feel remiss for not addressing theseconcerns by writing here.Steve Silverstein <ssilverstein@tapeop.com>

14/Tape Op#60/Letters(continued on page 16)

Hey Steve, thanks for the comments, but I think youmisunderstood me a bit. I’m not advocating “hand-holding” as you put it, but giving an artist the time,space and artistic freedom to develop over the courseof several years and albums. I think A & R reps in thebest, classic sense of the word did this in the past andallowed artists to develop beyond the “get a hit recordor you’re done” mentality. People like Joe Boyd [seehis interview this issue], for instance, nurtured NickDrake in a sensitive manner even though his recordsdidn’t sell at the time. But those days are long gone. Icompletely agree with you that we live in a veryexciting time for music and that it’s much easier for awide variety of music to be both heard and distributed.Additionally, I think we are in an age where it’spossible for musicians to actually make a middle classliving by performing and recording their musicindependent of a large corporation, which was muchharder to do in the past decades of the rock starmentality and business model. I’m all for the demiseof the corporate approach to marketing music andlooking forward to whatever’s coming next, even if I’mnot sure exactly what it will end up being. It has to bean improvement on the past few decades. -JB

I really enjoyed your review of Bright Eyes’Cassadaga. Mike did spend a lot of time and effort onit and it shows. I completely agree with you regardingAmerican Idol, record labels and music - you said whatI’ve been saying for a while. I didn’t know whether tolaugh or cry when I saw Larry’s rant on the last page.I was “accidentally” left off of Cassadaga for themastering credit. That stung pretty bad. It’s not oftenthat I work on a Billboard Top 10 release. I was alsoleft off of the “Four Winds” single and Noise Floor,which was a B-sides/rarities release from last year. SoI can appreciate what he was talking about from bothsides. I do a lot of work for Saddle Creek and they willbe fixing them on future pressings. We both know thatcredits are vital to our future work. So kudos to Larry!Doug Van Sloun <dougvs@bltd.com>

In response to the criticism letters in #58 regardingTape Op’s gear reviews, I’d like to say that I get a lot outof them. There are usually a few reviews per issue thatget me excited about something, but they’re often out ofmy price range. Many of the reviews are for things I don’tthink I’d want or need for some time yet. Sometimesthere are items reviewed that I don’t even understand.But I read them all anyway, and you know what? Witheach issue of Tape Op, I feel like I have a better idea ofwhat gear I “need” next, what the gear does and what Ishould be listening for when the time comes. So I verymuch appreciate the reviews as they are.Ty Hodson <via internet>

Hello my friend Larry, can you help me? I want tobuy a Neumann U 87 Ai and I don’t know what prework well with the U 87 for recording vocals. I wasthinking of buying the Focusrite ISA430. It’s good, butmight make the vocals too bright because ISA is notanalog. Sorry my English. If you can tell me for youwhat is the pre who works well with Newman U 87 Ai.Victor Ventura <ventura.jedie@hotmail.com>

First of all, the ISA430 is an analog channel strip.Perhaps you’re thinking tube? It’s a good piece of gear, andthere are many great choices for quality mic preamps outthere. I find that I change combinations of mic preampsand mics all the time, so even suggesting a preamp for anew U 87 on vocals is pretty much impossible as I wouldpick the preamp based on how it sounded with eachdifferent vocalist. I would first place more importance onmaking sure that the U 87 (or any mic) was exactly the micyou were looking for, and would emphasize getting to trackwith the mic and judge for yourself instead of reading areview of it or making assumptions. -LC

I just fell in love... with a baritone guitar that is.But, before I buy it, I can’t help but wonder if thebaritone and a standard 4-string bass would fight in arecording situation. I would NOT use it to play country,metal or surf and was just wondering how it holds upfunctioning as a “normal” rhythm guitar or lead foralternative/indie/rock styles. Have you ever workedwith bands that use both baritone guitar and bass inthis way, either as a drums/bass/guitar three-piece ora drums/bass/two-guitars quartet? If so, what werethe pros and cons of that situation?Cory Mathews <cmathews@umail.ucsb.edu>

I have a baritone guitar at Jackpot!, and it sneaksinto sessions now and then. I’ve also recorded a bandbefore (Two Guys) that was baritone, vocals and drums(like The Evens). To work with bass and guitar it wouldall depend on the registers the player was using and theoverall arrangement of the songs as to how the baritonewould fit into a “band” concept. Just like a “normal”band, making room for everyone can be key to having agreat sounding recording. -LC

Just wanted to drop you guys a note and say thatI’ve been reading for several issues now and I lovethe magazine. It’s a great service you’re providinghere, and it never fails to inspire ideas and get thecreative juices flowing. Love the reviews and articles.I continue to be amazed by how many people writein to say how they love the magazine - and then tellyou what you’re doing wrong and how you’ve sold outor something. Wow. But I guess you must be okaywith that or you wouldn’t continue to publish themin every issue. I applaud yourpatience. Anyway, I just wanted to sendyou an email that told you how awesome you weredoing, without then telling you how much better youcould be doing it. Keep it coming!John Caparoon <john.caparoon@gmail.com>

Okay, we’ll print one nice letter so we feel better aboutourselves. -LC

Fuck you and your yuppie fucking magazine!Steve Barakat <stevebarakat@comcast.net>

Ah, back to normal! -LC

Seems like there are quite a few Tape Op’ers usingthe Tascam 388. I created a track sheet for it so youcan archive your mix settings. Just go towww.thehabitat.info/Tascam388_TrackSheet.pdf.Print it out on 11x17 paper and you should begood to go.Roy Silverstein <roy.silverstein@gmail.com>

16/Tape Op#60/Letters(continued on page 18)

18/Tape Op#60/Letters(Fin.)

Thanks for your article on Matthew Herbert. BothHerbert and Matmos are prominent examples of a deeplypersonal approach to electronic music production. In clubmusic there are quite a few artists using field recording asa way to generate unusual musical sounds. One need notlook further than respected techno net-labelUn fo u nd s o und t o ge t o ne ’ s f e e t w e t(www.unfoundsoundrecords.com, techno skeptics maywant to start with Ezekiel Honig’s release). I think it’simportant to remember that the musicians rising to thetop are not those who believe combining preset loopsmakes music. Good electronic music is made with theutmost focus by musicians with ideas. If you keep yourears open there is a wealth of deeply considered electronicmusic, some of which uses familiar drum sounds like theTR-808. Let’s not confuse the use of presets generally withthe use of a proven classic instrument such as the 808.Guitarists may choose a Les Paul because there is no othersound in the world they love more. There is a traditionalinstrument there, but imaginative music can be madewith the instrument. That tension between tradition andimaginative sound exploration is a recurring theme in thepages of Tape Op, and it’s rare (and interesting) to readabout someone solely focused on the latter.David Last <www.davidlast.net>Nice piece on Bill Bottrell. He is a great guy, the

finest in every way. He has always been gracious aboutspeaking of his beginning at my studio and I am proudto have known him. Please give him my best regards.Also thank Matt for his excellent interview. Yourmagazine is excellent.Del Casher (Kasher/Kacher) <www.delcasher.com>

Were you so damn expensive until the big named artistsrecorded at your studio? I can’t imagine Elliott Smith havingenough money to record the two albums [New Moon] with the$300+ price. Just curious.Ryan Hanson <morningaftermidnight@gmail.com>

Wow. I hope you don’t always start off conversations with such anasty attitude. If you’re just curious, there are nicer ways to ask. I’llanswer you anyway, just to educate you, but think before you accusesomeone who’s spent their life creatingmusic and recording others ofonly being in it for the money. How about a couple of points? Elliottrecorded most of NewMoon in home studios. Three songs were doneat Jackpot!, in off hours. If an artist asked me to mix a home-recorded album like Elliott’s I would be happy to. I turn aroundsessions like that fast and it wouldn’t be too expensive. Jackpot! is ina totally different location now, built from the ground up as a studio,much bigger and the rent’s doubled. To keep it running I had to hirea studio manger (I spend most of my time working on Tape Op). Inever charged Elliott because he was helping build the studio andhelped me out with gear and cash. I was charging $250 a day at thebeginning - including engineer. We had so much less gear ten yearsago it’s not even funny. Compare Jackpot!’s rates to any other localstudio. By the way, who are the “big named artists” I’ve recorded?Do you think recording Sleater-Kinney leads to some big money jobs?I’ve never really made a consistent living as a studio owner. At

this point I am over $50,000 in debt with the recent studio moveand I won’t make this back from the studio for years. I love music.I never started this to get rich or to fuck over artists. If I had, I wouldsay I’ve failed on both counts. People who are driven to get theirmusic out there (like Elliott was) make it happen for themselvesinstead of accusing others of some misdeed. Elliott did drywallmudding and worked in pizza shops while playing music for years.And his first record was recorded on a 4-track cassette. -LC

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/19

“Of the dozen plus annual shows that I attend,

TapeOpCon is by far the best showof the year, one I look

forward to and enjoy.”

-Russ Berger, Russ Berger DesignGroup

“It’s like being on vacationwith500of your friends!

Everywhere you turn there’s someone interesting to talk to

aboutmusic and recording.”

-MaureenDroney, Producers & Engineers

Wing/The Recording Academy

“TapeOpCon... what can I say?Relaxing, informative,

good networking, lotsa fun...Work should be this good!”-

FrancisManzella, FMDesign Ltd

“TapeOpCon is awonderful, kind of unnamable,

indescribable thing. It’s not like any other thing that any of

us do. The faith and passion you see at TapeOpConmake

Joan of Arc seem like FriedrichNietzsche by comparison.

For some reasonwewant to do it again and again.”

-GeorgeMassenburg

“It was encouraging to see somany people of all age

ranges andmusical styles getting together after the

apocalypse. This bodeswell for the future of themusic

business.”-Sally Browder

“If a kid’s going to smoke pot, wemay aswell teach them

how to roll the joint right.”-Garrett Haines onthe

Mastering in theBoxworkshop.

“I thinkTapeOpCon serves a purpose far removed from

just gear or the technical, it gives us a sense of community

thatwould never otherwise exist if not for the hardwork in

planning and putting on such an event.”-Ross Hogarth

“You just can’t beat talking about gain structure and

distortionwhile in a hot tub.”-Hillary Johnson

“Imet a lot of great people fromall overwhowhere

happy as hell to be a part of the thing.”-Eric Ambel

“TheTapeOpCon remindsme of the scene inMuppets In

Space inwhichGonzo theGreat is reunitedwith his people,

other odd tufted beaked creatures - it’s a pleasure to gather

annually with our people (normally dispersed in caves), to

immerse ourselves in talking aboutmusic, recording and

their arcana for three days straight!”-Mark Rubel

“Only a legendary guitar hero like Pete Anderson could

set the state of digital recording back ten yearswith his

personal preference for older digital systems.”

-Joe Chiccarelli

“I rodeahorse, rode thewaterslide, touredBiosphere2,

ate fabulous Ecuadorian food, and got a greatmassage...

Recording,what’s that?!”-Steve Silverstein

“No superlative is adequate.”-Don Zientara

TapeOpCon2007Held at the Hilton El Conquistador Resort in Tucson, Arizona on June 8-

10th this past month, the sixth annual and final TapeOpCon proved to be aneducational and entertaining event indeed. Advice, talent and brainstormingsessions flowed through five main panels, 36 workshops, nine Pot LuckStudio sessions and more.

On Friday, Club Congress and The Rialto Theatre hosted a New Orleans benefit with Rebirth Brass Band, Mitch Easter and many others -plus some good Creole food. Saturday morning’s “Classical Recording” workshop saw Linda Ronstadt dropping in to banter with her long timecollaborator George Massenburg! Saturday night brought a fantastic free concert by the pool, featuring Calexico, DeVotchKa and JohnVanderslice. Then O’Malley Jones and the James Brown revue (featuring Geoff Daking, Greg Gualteri (Pendulum Audio, Anamod) and DaveAmels (Bomb Factory, Anamod)) performed Live at the Apollo 1962 in its entirety, playing their last note around 2 a.m., showing the kids howto play for nearly four hours. Truly a special event. After Sunday night’s “More Records that Made Me Want to Record” moderator Mark Rubelcalled up the legendary Les Paul and led us in a sing-a-long of “Happy Birthday”. Couldn’t be a better end than that!

For the past six years, Tape Op Magazine has partnered with conference director Craig Schumacher to host TapeOpCon. This year’s eventwas an amazing event but also the last of this run. This may seem like an odd choice of actions, as the event is always successful in attractingsome of the most creative and forward-thinking producers, engineers, musicians, exhibitors, sponsors and panelists around, and is a highlyenjoyable time for all involved. Tape Op’s reasons for this change are complex.

With my partner John Baccigaluppi we handle the constant editing, publishing and running of Tape Op Magazine, which this spring alsolaunched a branch in London to handle publishing, UK/EU subscriptions and related advertising. We are also working on a series of bookscompiling the back issues of our magazine. For over a year I have seen many changes in my own life. A personal move to southeast Arizona,where my girlfriend and I purchased a home to renovate, led right into to a move for my studio (Jackpot! Recording) to a new building inPortland, Oregon. I also began work as an archivist for the estate of Elliott Smith, a job I am just beginning to tackle in full and foresee takingup a large amount of my time. What this leads to is a question of time and energy - what do I excel at and want to do on a daily basis?

Given the monthly deadlines I already cope with, layering a year-long deadline for the conference on top of it was just more work than Icould handle or do to the best of my abilities. As I kept thinking about it - what did I really want to do with my time? - I decided that workingon Tape Op Magazine, owning a studio, making albums (which I haven’t been able to do in eight months) and working on Elliott’s archivingwere enough recording-related tasks in my life. I decided that helping run and putting my magazine’s name on an event - even a successful,enjoyable and positive event like TapeOpCon - isn’t something I have the time or drive to do anymore.

Six great years of TapeOpCon sit behind us. I hold many friendships that have been made at or reinforced through this venture dearto my heart, and have always been thankful for all the work everyone has put into this event. Given all the experience he initiallybrought to the table and has gained over these last years, TapeOpCon director Craig Schumacher is now poised to bring a new-yet-familiar recording related event back to the city of New Orleans in summer 2008. Me? I’ll take a quick breather and then jump back inand try to catch up with my own life! -Larry Crane

After six great years it’s time to take this conference to the next level and to grow it and include more people and more voices in the audiocommunity. Next year we will return to New Orleans and do a similar conference, but with a new name. I am very passionate about bringing itback to New Orleans, a city which has been very good to us. Bringing the conference to New Orleans in 2004 and 2005 allowed us to expandthe conference content and the experience and was a good fit for our attendees, sponsors, exhibitors, and panelists. Post Hurricane Katrina,New Orleans is still a great music city and is still a perfect site for this conference. Our government has abdicated its responsibility to NewOrleans, and as a community of people who live for the music it’s on us to do what we can to help lift this great music city back up. Bringingour conference, our community and our business to New Orleans is one of the best things we can do.

Thanks to all of you who’ve attended, and for making this the best event in the audio community. Thanks to Larry and John for everythingthey and their wonderful magazine has done - and for contributing to a vision of what a truly great audio conference could be. We look forwardto continuing our relationship with Tape Op Magazine as a cornerstone sponsor in this conference and we also look forward to adding othersignificant and relevant organizations in our audio community. I hope we see you all in New Orleans in 2008. -Craig Schumacher

An ending...

...and a new beginning:

20/Tape Op#60/TapeOpCon

Devotchka

John Vanderslice & Friends Calexico

O’Malley Jones & The Geoff Daking Band

Photos by Skid Severson (1-3)and Debbie Daking (4)

Mike Castoro, the 43-year-oldowner and creator of WunderAudio, lives quietly with hiswife and two kids in thenorthern hills of Austin, Texas.Originally from upstate NewYork, he spent his junior highand high school years inFlorida, then moved to Austinduring the ’80s to attend theUniversity of Texas, where heearned a BA in recordingengineering. Shortly aftergraduation, he started StardogStudio as a modest, 4-trackcassette facility, and within adecade grew it to a 24-trackanalog museum for vintage gearrife with Pultecs, Fairchilds,Neve, Neumanns and at least ahalf dozen Mellotrons - thetape-based keyboard popularizedby The Beatles and the MoodyBlues. After six years ofrunning a successful studio, hebranched out and became avintage gear broker when hestarted a company called MistyHill Audio. In the late 1990s,he started manufacturing his ownline of pro audio equipmentunder the Wunder Audio banner.

How is theCM7-GTmic different fromandsimilar to theCM7microphone?

Well, they’re similar especially if you order the GT withthe M7 capsule instead of the K47 capsule. Thecapsule, the grille and the transformer are all going tobe identical. The main difference is the GT has nopattern switch on the chrome top grille like a U47would have - it’s on the power supply unit instead. Sothe cardioid is a perfect cardioid on the U47 or CM7,but when you change patterns using a power supplythere’s always variation plus or minus by a tinypercent. Still, the C12 and the M49 also change polarpatterns from the power supply, and those arecertainly well-accepted mics. Also, the metal work onthe GT isn’t historically correct like it is in the CM7,where it’s as close as possible to an authentic U47. Itcomes from the same high quality metal shop, but it’smade of different parts and a lot simpler. We don’thave to replicate every tiny screw, piece of rubber andPVC in the U47.

So are you approaching the GT as a newmic entirely?

Exactly. We’re doing a new mic from scratch, so we don’thave to reverse engineer everything. On the GT, there’sprobably two thirds the parts of the CM7. For example,on the CM7, if you take off the grille, the capsuletravels with it - it’s connected. But if you take thegrille off the GT, the capsule stays on the body of themic. Just that one part of the equation means the GThas a lot fewer parts and lower costs. Another exampleis that the connector on the bottom of the CM7 is aU47-type Tuchel. On the GT we didn’t want tocompromise too much and use an XLR, we used a 3/4size Tuchel like you see on a U67 or an M269.

Any other differences between the twomics?

Obviously, the heart of the GT is the glass tube, which iswhat GT stands for. We’re using a NOS Telefunken glasstube that basically replaced the VF and EF14 back in1960 when they went to glass tubes and stoppedmaking the metal tube. Since it has the glass housing,theoretically the microphonics should be a bit betterthan the metal, and I’m able to find a lot more reallygood quality tubes because I have thousands tochoose from. Tubes make the biggest differencesonically between the two mics. The EF14 has finerdetail (I think) than the glass tube and 3 dB moreoutput. So when you do a shootout between the twomics, they’re going to sound pretty identical if you setthe mic pre to 3 dB more gain on the GT. The extranoise floor is equalized by the lower noise from theglass tube - the metal tubes tend to be noisier, eventhough they provide better detail. The other thing Inoticed is that when I tried some loud, shouting typevocals the CM7 had a fuller sound than the GT, butsince I did one take, I don’t have a well-roundedopinion of that yet. Time will tell. It’s basically thesame circuit, although not point-to-point like theCM7. One engineer thought that the differencebetween the CM7 and the GT was that vocals soundedcloser, more intimate on the CM7.

How did you go from musician/studioowner to pro audiomanufacturer?

I started Stardog Studio as a singer-songwriter looking torecord his own stuff. All I really had was a four-trackcassette recorder and a Realistic microphone. Icouldn’t afford better stuff, but I was well aware therewas better stuff out there. I always used to say thatwe would reinvest ten percent of the studio profit intonew gear, but after six years I realized that wasn’t

happening. So I got a Small Business AdministrationSBA loan - this was during the Clinton Administration- and it was probably the best thing I ever did. It’s agovernment guaranteed loan. It’s hard to get astraight bank loan without collateral, but with the SBAloan they looked at my last three years of tax formsand they asked me what my five year projection wasgoing to be, so I projected very big. They gave me agood-sized credit line and I went wild - I spent it allin about a month. Because I loved microphones, Ibought way too many.

What kind of mics did you buy for MistyHill Audio?

Neumann U47s of course, along with CMV563s, RFT 7151bottle mics, Schoeps, and AKGs. I actually blew moremoney than I got from my SBA loan. It was about$100,000 and I spent $116,000. I even dipped intomy credit card. I wasn’t very frugal, so I sold some ofthe stuff and realized I could make a little profit bybuying and selling vintage gear. So I started a businesscalled Misty Hill Audio where I did that consistently forabout six years. Eventually, I actually earned a hugerack of vintage gear - Pultecs, Fairchilds, Studer tapemachines and Neve boards. I guess I was pretty goodat what I did, because I made a lot of contacts acrossthe country and overseas to find gear. The catch is youhave to know how to tech your own gear, which I wasable to do. I would buy U47s in any condition - Ididn’t care if they worked or not, because I knew you’dnever find one that was perfect. I always said theycame in varying degrees of decay. As long as all theparts were there, if it wasn’t working, fine. I did losemoney on deals a few times, especially when I startedtrading on eBay. eBay killed many vintage brokercareers, but fortunately I did most of this from 1997to 2003, before eBay got so big - although I wascompeting with eBay at the end.

How did you get into making yourown mics?

I bought my first U47 in 1997, and it was in such badcondition that I wanted to make a new body for thatmic. The grille was dented in and it looked like an oldrusted pipe. Surprisingly, it sounded pretty good, andwhen I took it apart I had visions of being able to millthe aluminum and reconstruct the mic again fromscratch. In my mind, it didn’t seem like so tough anordeal - but it sure was. I figured if the U47 was made50 years ago, then there would be no reason itcouldn’t be done now. One of my uphill battles wastrying to get the right metal kit for the mic so I couldsell it for $5,000. Most of the metal workers weretelling me each metal kit would cost $5,000 itself. Ittook a long time to find a kit at a price point where itwould be feasible to build a mic and sell it for $5,000.I talked to other manufacturers who wanted to dowhat I was doing, and they told me the target pricewould have to be $12 to $15,000 dollars.

So initially you were interested inrepairing the U47s you already had,but then you took it a step furtherand decided to build your own?

Right, except initially I only wanted to make ten of them.I wanted to make a body to repair that first mic Iowned, and then build nine more from scratch. In the

22/Tape Op#60/Mr. Castoro/(continues on page 24)

Behind The GearMike Castoro

This Issue’s Man of Wunder

by Mike Jasper, photo by Max Cooper

first year, from 2003 to 2004, I only sold eight CM7stotal. Even after the third year, I was selling less than30 per year. It takes a long time to make up yourinvestment, but I didn’t care - I just wanted the mic soI could use it. And I always wanted parts for U47s. I’dthink, “I wish I had a tube socket”, or “I wish I had abottom bell with a cable connector” or “I wish I had theU47 grille.” And people were also buying parts from me,and still do so today. The parts I use for the CM7 you canalso use to replace parts in the U47 - they fit perfectlyon the original mic and there aren’t too manyreproductions you can say that about.

You also make a CM12, which is patternedafter the AKG C12, but we don’t hearmuchabout thatone.Why?

The reason you don’t hear about it is for the same reasonthe CM7 was flying under the radar for a few years. I don’tsend that many mics out for review, and when a mic is inwhat I call the pioneering period - when there are notmany sales happening - it’s hard to keep extra mics tosend out for review. The CM12s are about two yearsbehind the CM7, and I only build up five at a time. Thatsaid, a lot of people have them, and some people evenown pairs of them. They’re pretty much a dead ringer forthe C12. If you had the mic opened up next to an originalC12, you’d never be able to tell the difference except forthe color of the capacitors.

You also manufacture the PEQ1, PEQ1R,PAFOUR and the new Wunderbar. Arethese different versions of the samepreamp design?

The PEQ1, 1R and PAFOUR are all the same preampdesign. Of course the PAFOUR doesn’t have EQ like theothers. They’re like a very vague replica of the oldAllotrope modules. When I say vague, there’s abouteight years of work starting from the reproduction towhere we are now. We did change resister and capacitorvalues, and improved the slew rate from 5 volts permicrosecond to 22 volts per microsecond, so it’s a 44times faster slew rate.

What’s the slew rate?It’s just the rise time of the signal, and when it’s a lotquicker it sounds more natural and realistic on the highend. That’s the difference between the PEQ1 and PEQ1with the Revision A mod. With the PAFOUR we improvedthe output stage a little bit. We added a five watt poweramp right before it goes to the output transformer. Whatthat does is it drives a low impedance load better, suchas a vintage compressor that has transformer inputs. Alot of modern equipment will have a 10 K inputimpedance, while old vintage stuff might have a 600-ohm impedance. The PEQ1 is now into a revision C. Weadded a discrete active HP filter, a much higher qualitygain switch, a custom design that has three times thegold contact area on each switch position, and we’rereplacing the push button switches with the light pipeswitches that are found on the Wunderbar console. Eventhe enclosures will have improved metal work, withthicker faceplates and tack welding so everything’sbeefier. The PC boards have been expanded from two-sided to four-sided. We’re going to have a radiofrequency filter that can be added or not added with ajumper. The Rev C is going to be the epitome of the PEQ1and the PAFOUR. Also, the PAFOUR will have hi-passfilters and output pots, along with a lower input gainthat will work like a pad and go down to -24 dB, whichis a pretty good pad. We’ll be doing that last mod on the

PEQ1s too. Right now you can only go to -18, and withthe output pot on the PAFOUR, you’ll have a lot moreflexibility for gain structuring, both input and output.

Whyaren’t theremoremicrophonerepairtechs?

It’s a scary thing, and back in my early days of being astudio owner I was frightened about a piece of gearbreaking. Fortunately I had a lot of contacts out of theUK who were some of the best recording console andtape machine technicians in the world and I used tohave them come over to my house for an extended stayand teach me how to fix equipment. That went on prettyheavily from 1998 to 2000. We were doing stuff likejoining two consoles together and recapping tapemachines. That was my apprenticeship, although Ialways repaired things even when I was a kid. I used tosend my mics off to get repaired, and believe me, Iwasn’t always happy with the way they were repaired. Iguess by reverse engineering and disassembling things Igot to know how they worked. I don’t think anybodytaught me how to fix mics; I just did it on my own. Iguess I’m from the school of mic repairmen who learnedby taking everything apart. With any piece of vintagegear I buy, I disassemble it all the way and reassembleit before I even turn it on. I don’t know if that’s aproblem I have or not, but even if it’s a Mellotron orHammond organ, I never plug it in before I take it apart.

What does the future of Wunder Audiolook like?

I have about a half dozen full time people working forWunder, and I have independent contractors who mightspend half a year’s time working for us, whether it’s amachinist, a mechanical engineer or electronic engineer.Those are basically the three kinds of workers we needhelp from. The whole concept of Wunder Audio is to be aboutique company, so growing into a large company goesagainst the grain. Some of the products are limited, suchas the CM7. There are a finite number of EF14 tubes, andthere are a finite number of capsules that M7 expertSiegfried Thiersch - who is now in his 70s - can make.We’ve got the [mixing] boards coming out, theWunderbar, but we’re only going to make 20 per year forfour or five years at the most. Everything that’s comingout in the future has been planned and prototyped, butthey aren’t out yet. One of them is a recreation of theWestern Electric mic pre. I have a 12-channel WesternElectric board, which is the best tube mic pre I’ve everheard. The replica will come out as a module for a boardand as a two-channel mic rack piece. Another componentis the Wunder Audio compressor, a solid state compressorbased on the PEQ1 topology. It’ll be like a Neve 2254, butwith the Wunder transformers and amplifier stages. It’llhave faster attack and release times. Also, we’re comingout with a small diaphragm tube microphone, kind of likea KM54. That’s going to be a really nice little mic andshould be out in 2008. We also have the M49 replicacalled the CM49 available in limited runs. It’s beingproduced very slowly. Finally, there will be a one-channelversion of the PAFOUR, and we’re also going to have afour band EQ coming out. If we were a large companywith a lot of capital, I guess our products would be readyin a month, but it’ll be another two years beforeeverything is out. Everything will have its turn. r

www.wunderaudio.com

24/Tape Op#60/Mr. Castoro/(Fin.)

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/25

In this control room you have a 24-channel Ward-Beck broadcastconsole, Studer 16-track and 2-trackreel-to-reels, Radar and Pro Tools.Whatdoyouusuallyuse for tracking?

Jace: It depends how big the project is. Some bandscome in and want to limit themselves to the 16-track,so I’ve mixed entire projects on the Ward-Beck usingoutboard gear. Other bands that are doing somethinga little more complex will fill up the 16-track, and I’lldump it into the Radar. Some bands don’t care abouttape, so they’ll go straight to Radar, and then we canmix in Pro Tools if they want. We want to make surethat we are always capable of doing whatever peopleneed. If it’s just a straight rock band with a couple ofguitars and vocals then I can say, “Let’s do it on the16-track and mix on the console.” For some of themore involved stuff, if they’re going to be addingviolins and they want to build up 40 tracks of stuff,we’re going to have to mix in Pro Tools, though Iknow mixing on the console would probably result ina better product. If I can get the project down to 24tracks, get it back on the Radar with all the editsdone and then pass it through the console to theStuder 2-track, I will.

Jace Lasek andDave Smith:Breaking Glassin Montrealby Martin Horn

My first encounter with the sprawling collection of keyboards, pianos,British-made guitar amplifiers and homemade walls that is BreakglassStudios happened when I had the opportunity to sit in on a session for theband Shoot the Moon. I opened the door at the end of the hall in anotherwise nondescript building in Montreal’s Little Italy to find the studio’stape library. Reels of 2-inch and quarter-inch tape sat in their boxes, withnames like Islands, Besnard Lakes, and Sunset Rubdown written on thespines. I made my way further in and opened the door to the control room,where the bandwas tracking vocals while Jace Lasek sat at the console. Lasekand his business partner/co-engineer Dave Smith met in high school inRegina, Saskatchewan. After school, they moved to the west coast beforerealizing that if they wanted to have their own studio space, they would haveto escape the high cost of living in Vancouver. They settled in Montreal inlate ’99. At the time, Montreal was at the tail end of a long recession, andone could easily get by cheaply. Since then, they’ve worked on albums andsongs by the aforementioned bands, as well as Wolf Parade, Bell Orchestreand Destroyer, among others. Along the way they have learned, often throughtrial and error, how to get the most out of their haphazard collection ofrecording gear, how to build walls and reflection-free zones and how to buildand mod their own gear. Most importantly, they have honed their abilities,knowing as Jace puts it, “When to be invisible, and when to step up andprovide support to the band.” This is their stated purpose: helping bands getthe most they can out of the studio environment.

26/Tape Op#60/Mr. Lacek & Mr. Smith/(Continued on page 28)

Dave: A lot of bands will come in and use the studio fortracking and then take the tracks home to mix, so alot of the time mixing isn’t even an issue.

J: It’s actually a lot of fun for the bands to mix on theboard. The shitty thing aboutmixing in Pro Tools is thatpeople are sitting in the back of the room for hours,watching me draw stupid little lines. We don’t haveautomation on this console, so when we’re mixing on iteverybody’s right there helping with the mix, and theysort of feel like they’ve had part in it, like they’ve playedtheir guitar or whatever one more time.

You have an enormous live room,especially considering the size ofmosttrackingrooms in studios thesedays.

J: Our room is amazing for strings and horns.It doesn’t seem like you have anytreatment on thewalls.

J: The shape of the control room we built adjoining thelive room means that by default, there are no parallelwalls in the live room. Even if the walls were parallelit would be okay since the room is big enough.

D: Due to the fact that the room’s not finished, thereare gaping holes all over the place. There are lots ofplaces for the sound to get lost. I think if we hadall the doors in, we’d probably have to put in somekind of treatment.

Do you do a lot of live-off-the-floorrecording?

J: Because our live room is so big, we do a lot of livetracking that some studios don’t want to do. We dohave to tell bands that if you want to record live-off-the-floor, what you’re going to hear coming out of themonitors is pretty much how its going be, but we’ll letthem set up as they would if they were rehearsing. We’llput up baffles if there are any obvious problems.

D: I like to say to bands, “Go set up and make it soundhow you want it to sound in the room”, and just dealwith the bleed for better or for worse, but make surethey’re okay with that from the beginning. The funnything is, they always say they are, but when it comesto mixing, they’ll ask for me to do something with thekick, for example. But the bass will be louder than thekick in the kick mic, so I can’t. I don’t have too muchroom tomaneuver. We just have to let it be sometimes,which I think sometimes gets you better results.

J: There was one project I did where the vocal micactually became the basis for the whole mix becauseit was a really hot condenser mic, and when thesinger wasn’t singing, the whole band was in the mic.I couldn’t just turn that off, so I built the mix aroundthis roommic that he was using as a vocal mic. It wasfun to mix because it was such a challenge.

I’venoticed that the soundof therecordscoming out of this studio are fairlydiverse.Forexample, there’samarkeddifference between the sound ofReturn to the Sea by Islands and ShutUpIAmDreamingbySunsetRubdown.Return to the Sea sounds unhyped,almost the opposite of the SunsetRubdown record, which sounds likeit’s using a lot of compression and it’sgotakindofmidrangegrit to it.

J: The Sunset Rubdown record was mixed by Spencer[Krug, singer for Sunset Rubdown].

D: He tracked it here and then took it home and mixed itin an afternoon or something. He called me after andsaid,” You’re gonna hate it, you’re gonna hate mymix.”

J: We tracked most of that live-off-the-floor and straightinto the 16-track.

D: I bounced it onto Radar and he took those files home.The difference in sound between those two recordsprobably hasmore to dowithwhomixed it.Mark Lawsonmixed Return to the Sea and Spencer mixed Shut Up IAm Dreaming. They also both used their own gear tomix, so that probably accounts for a lot of the difference.

So the characteristic sound of thosealbums isn’t necessarily a result ofyoumaking it sound thatway.Do youattempt to get a neutral sound whenyou are tracking?

J: There are certain things that I like to do and prefer todo, but I’m not going to force my opinion on people.I want them to feel like they’re making a record asopposed to me making a record and forcing them tohave my sound.

So it’s not like a Prince production.J: Yeah exactly. [laughs]But you know, there are timeswhenpeople come in and they’ll say that they want me to putmy stampon it. I’mworkingwithSteveRamsay rightnow(the guitarist for Stars) on a project called Young Galaxy,and he’s basically said “You can help me with thearrangements, and you can play on it if you want and Iwant you to build it in the way you would your ownrecords.” So this is kind of the first time I’ve been able tobuild a project from the ground up, and I’m making thedecisions as far as sound goes. He obviously has the finalsay, and I never impose anything on him, but since he’sgiven me the opportunity make decisions sometimes I’llsay “Well, I think this is a really good idea. You can throwit out later, but lets just put it on now.”

D: Steve liked your record and he wanted you to bringthat kind of an idea to it. But I don’t think it soundslike a Besnard Lakes [Jace’s band] record.

J: I think Besnard records sound terrible compared tothe other stuff we’ve done here.

Whatwas it hewas looking for?J: Besnard records are always really haphazardly puttogether. It’s my opportunity to experiment withthings that I couldn’t really ever do with a band.Sometimes I make mistakes when I’m making theBesnard records, but I never go back. For example, ifI do a drum track, it’s usually just one mic in the room- ‘cause when I do the Besnard stuff I’m alone.

Whereas with Shoot the Moon you usedtenmics on the drums.

J: Yeah. I’ll put one mic in the room and record withsome compression, and when I’m mixing it, I’ll seethe drums need more, so I’ll overdub something else.

D: No band would ever come in and let you use just onemic on the drums!

J: I know! So I’ll go back and record another drum trackover top of it and it’s fine. I’m just haphazardlyputting it together. When I’m recording vocals forBesnard, I’m usually sitting at the console with anSM57 running right into the space echo, so there’s

shitloads of noise, and I just sit there and sing withthe headphones on. I guess that was the kind ofapproach that Steve was looking for.

You can afford to be less conservativewhen it’s your own project.

J: Yeah. The other thing is I don’t have a lot of timewhen I’m making Besnard records because it’s usuallybetween jobs. I throw a mic up and get it down, sothe sound isn’t going to be as hi-fi. I can’t put tenmics on the drums. I’ve just gotta hope that the onemic I do use is not going to peak out.

D: It think stuff like that sounds better anyway. I tendto believe that the more obsessive and anal you are,the worse off it’s going to sound - to a degree atleast. Obviously this is not always the case.

J: There is something to be said about a sense of urgency.Sometimes it translates onto the record. You can tellwhen something’s been slapped together really quickly.There’s something really cool about that. All the oldrecords from the fifties and sixties were done veryquickly, and recorded to 2-track or to 4-track. There areobviously lots of errors. Something will be too loud orpop out, but I love that stuff. I guess I use the studioas a giant 4-track. I just keep layering things, becausethat’s how I always used to use my Tascam 4-track.There’s always going to be errors in the 4-track format.Whenever you bounce, there’s going to be somethingthat’s bounced too high or too low, so you have tocompensate for that. I love that about it.

BrianEno’s Oblique Strategies cardshadthe “Honor thy mistake as hiddenintention.” I always try to keep thatinmind inmy ownwork.

J: In my experience, a lot of the bands don’t want toexperiment. They’re paying, and they don’t want tospend time on something that might not work. Theywant to get in and get out.

D: It’s a drag. I’ve been listening to “I Am the Walrus”a lot lately, and it seems so far away from whatanyone would try today. That was obviously theproduct of a lot of experimentation. It’s great whenbands do take the time and spend two weeks totrack an album. Islands actually recorded a drumtrack on the roof. It’s not as experimental as JohnLennon wanting to be hung upside down and swungaround to get a weird sound, but at least they’retrying. I think there’s this trend towardsdocumenting bands. My favorite records sound likerecords, not like a perfect mirror of the originalperformance. It’s a philosophy of capturing thesound exactly how it is and that’s the record, asopposed to manipulating the sound in some way. Ilike it when people make their records a littledifferent from what the band actually sounds like.

What kinds of issues would you haverecording drums on a roof?

J: There are no reflections - it’s like an anechoicchamber. Once the sound leaves, its gone.

D: They were getting a slapback from a nearby building.It was a telemarketing office and a bunch of peoplewere watching them from the windows. It was a weirdkind of rock star moment for J’aime [Tambeur, Islands’former drummer]. It sounded really cool.

28/Tape Op#60/Mr. Lacek & Mr. Smith/(Continued on page 29)

J: They built the tempo of the song around the reflection that was coming back.It’s an unreleased track off their album. They’ll probably release it as a b-sideor something. Aside from that, I think almost all the drums on Return to the Seawere tracked in the dead room.

You guys build some of your own gear?J: The goal when we started this studio was similar to the Joe Meek philosophy, wherehe built his whole studio from scratch, down to the electronics. Dave’s doing a lotof research on how we can buy kits and build our own preamps and modify things.We’re really excited about that, but we have this ongoing argument. People cometo the studio and have this preconceived notion that if it’s not Neve or API, it’s notgood enough. We’re going to build this stuff that hopefully will sound as good, ormaybe more interesting. But how are we going to have people know that we canget good sounds without these big names?

Bandshavecomeinandbeenuncom-fortablewiththefactthatyoudon’thaveanyofthebignamesinpreamps?

J: Yeah. Because the daily rate here is quite low, we’ll say to them, “If you want, youcan rent stuff.” So a lot of bands do that and it makes them feel better.

D: If we bought all the gear that all these people seem to want, we’d have to doubleour rates, at which point…

J: No one would come.D: No one could afford to come. I think a lot of the bands deserve to have a greatsound. I wish people would trust us a little more to be able to provide that. Ithink it would be really cool [if] the studio had its own custom stuff that we hadvoiced by component choice to suit our needs. It won’t be Neve or API, buthopefully it’ll sound good. I’d like if you could work it in somewhere that theWard-Beck beats out API and Neve in A/B tests.

Icanputthatinverbatim!TheWolfParadealbum,Apologiesto the Queen Mary, wasmixedhere.

D: That was early on. There were no walls here yet.J: We mixed it in the giant space. We started in our old space, and finished it here. Itwas hilarious. We had a little setup when this was just a raw five thousand square-foot room.

I had read that they were unhappy with how it soundedbefore they came to you.

J: They were unhappy with the way that Isaac [Brock, Modest Mouse] had mixed it,and they came here to mix it again. I think they just wanted to get their handson it and make it their own again

D: Didn’t Spencer take some of the tracks home?J: Yeah, they all had a huge hand in it. I think they just wanted to get their recordback. They had always recorded in their own space. I think they felt a littledisillusioned because it didn’t sound the way they were used to makingthemselves sound.

D: With the Sunset Rubdown record, Spencer lamented the fact that it sounded likeit was recorded in a studio. He would have, with hindsight, preferred recording itat home. That EP that Wolf Parade recorded themselves sounds amazing.

J: If Arlen [Thompson, drummer for Wolf Parade] ever gets that Ward-Beck that hebought up and running, I think they’ll probably make their own records from nowon. Going into a professional studio was an opportunity for them to see what it’slike to work in that kind of environment. I remember Spencer telling me that hewas troubled by it. He was asking himself if they should take this opportunity orjust make it themselves.

D: Dan said to me, “The one lesson I learned out of all this is that having a roomfull of super-expensive gear doesn’t mean you’re going to make a good record.”

J: I understand that people want to make it sound really cool because the concept ofthe album dictates that it sound a certain way, and that’s awesome, that’s fine…

D: But you’re not necessarily going to make a great album because you have Nevepreamps and a Neumann mic.r

www.breakglass.ca

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/29

www.tapeop.comfree subscriptions online!

When JÈBoyd’s bookWh⁄eBicycles came out laÌ year, I was exc⁄ed. Not only could I finally readmore about this amazing record producer/label owner/manager, but there

might be a chance to interview him for TapeOp. During JÈ’sWeÌCoaÌ book tour we were able toÍend a lunch together at Portland’s Doug Fir Lounge, and I finally got

tomÕt theman who recorded some ofmy all-time favor⁄e records. From Pink Floyd’s firÌ single, “Arnold Layne”, Richard and Linda`ompson’s ShootOut the Lights, R.E.M.’s

Fables of theReconÌruÀion, moÌ of the Nick Drake catalog and early Fairport Convention, to some passionate and informed produÀion of worldmusic albums, JÈ has helped

create, release and guarantÕ the (sometimes gradual) success of many artiÌs. In some ways you could look at JÈ’s carÕr as flying under the radar or hidden behind the scenes,

but even he hasÚo slightly odd number one h⁄s, w⁄h “Dueling Banjos” Ïom the Deliverance soundtrack, andMariaMuldaur’s “Midnight at theOasis”. Anyone w⁄h over 40

years in themusic business is capable of losing his or her wonder ofmusic, but w⁄h JÈ this is not the case. Yes, he’s Ìopped producing records and running a label, but w⁄h

Wh⁄eBicycles he tells eloquent tales of his adventures inmusic through the ’60s and ’70s.W⁄h his next book he will take us on a journey through worldmusic - and I’ll be wa⁄ing

patiently for this sure-to-be-fascinating tale.

Joe Boyd

byLarry Cranephotos byAlissa Anderson

“Onlywhen the sonicimage is right can I relaxand enjoy themusic.”

The one thing that really struckmewiththe book is that everything thathappenstoyoureallycomesfrombeinga fan of music. I think one of theproblems I’ve had with the musicindustry lately is that it just feels liketoo many people in it are just doing ajob,notcomingatitwithalargerecordcollectionandapassionformusic.

That may be true with the major labels, but I think formost people who work in the indie world, the rewardsare so limited and chancy that most people I’ve metare pretty passionate about music.

That’s true. We’ll see what happens tothemajor labels, anyway.

I don’t remember saying it, but [in] one of the interviewsI read I was welcoming the crisis in the music industrysaying, “The dinosaurs will slowly sink into the tar pitsand some of their cousins will turn into birds.”

There have been periods where majorlabels worked fine, hand-in-handwith themusic. Your book documentsacertainerathatdefinitelymadealotofsense-Elektrawasn’tpartofamajorlabel in the same way it is now. Twothingsthatmakethemselvesapparentin thebookare your early loves of jazzand working with jazz musicians. Inmy vision, that influenced the wayyou recorded everything from thenon. It becamemore about looking fora space and a performance andcapturing something.

It’s not just jazz. Certainly, jazz in general has only reallysuccessfully been recorded that way, unlike other formsof music. I don’t think there was a question of takinga practice that applied to jazz and trying to apply it toother things. I got through the mid-’60s until 4-tracktape came in. That was the way all music was made.

That’s true. That kind of dictatesthe process.

Les Paul did some tricks, but theywere bouncing stuff backand forth. That was an aberration rather than a practice.

I guess now we take layering andcreating in that fashion for granted.

The “Wall of Sound” was live. He [Spector] had threepianos in the studio. He had twelve guitars in thestudio. He had the girls in the vocal booth live.

What I responded to was you talkingabout looking for recording spacesand how that creates part of theenvironment, and making suresomethinghappened on the floor.

That is one of the problems I have with a lot ofcontemporary recording. You don’t feel like it is takingplace in a room. It’s taking place in cyberspace or inan electronic environment - close mic’ing in a deadspace. If you want atmosphere, you dial it up. I keepquoting these two examples, but I think they’re goodexamples: Buena Vista Social Club and Norah Jones –they really sound as though they’ve been made in aspace. I don’t personally think they would’ve beenthat successful if they hadn’t sounded like that. Norah

Jones made her record on Pro Tools originally andBlue Note said, “We don’t like it.” So they went intothe studio with Arif Mardin to redo it. They were right.It could’ve easily dropped like a stone, but that recordhad that fantastic warmth and atmospherics to it thatyou can only get when you’ve got more than onemicrophone open in the space at the same time, so itsounds three-dimensional.

In your book you mentioned workingwith The Incredible String Band anddoing overdubs, having access to an8-track, probably at that point.

The first time it was four.You were taking a jump from twodifferent ways of working. Initially,what did you learn in that process?

I don’t think there were generic lessons. Mistakes wereindividual and specific. You try putting a harmony onand it doesn’t work and you erase it and putsomething else on. You put a pennywhistle onsomething and Robin [Williamson] or Mike [Heron]would say, “Oh that works.” It was in the air. [In] ’67,Revolver was already out and the fact that The Beatleswere working on Sgt. Pepper’s - and “Penny Lane” and“Strawberry Fields…” came out. It was in the drinkingwater, those kinds of experiments. It was hugely funand it worked. They got it right away.

How did you feel your role changed as arecord producer working in asituation built more around addingand judging overdubs to a take?

I didn’t think about it much. It was all whatever thesituation needed. If I was recording Chris McGregor’ssextet - that was one job. Doing Nick Drake was acompletely different job because then you had to hiremusicians to come in and join him. The FairportConvention - the recording process changes a lotwhether you have a drum kit or not. All the problemsare different. With The [Incredible] String Band youhad tremendous flexibility because there was no drumkit, so there’s a lot of sonic space - it’s open. Adrummer playing a kit takes up a lot of space and ifyou put an overdub in, it has to assert itself. WhereasRobin, on the first track of Hangman’s BeautifulDaughter [“Koeeoaddi There”] where he sings,“Skating on happy valley pond” – he came up with[an] idea. He just said, “I’d like to try this.” He hadlittle finger cymbals and he just rubbed them and itsounds like a skate on ice, or you surmise skates onice. He just went downstairs and John [Wood] set upall the microphones. I think there was a track thathad something on it from a previous verse, and he’sgoing to have to put something else on it the nextverse. So we did part of that then did “shhh shhshhh” [sound of the finger cymbals] and put echoonto the mix - they just really enjoyed the process.My role was to tell them, “Look, you can do this.Think of an instrument to put on to add to this tune”or whatever. If Robin would say, “I want to put onfour layers of this instrument”, I would say, “Well, Idon’t think it would sound so good.” We would haveto bounce it back and forth. There were also logisticalthings like, once you learned it and started doing this

kind of stuff, it was good to know beforehand whatthey had in mind - so you positioned the tracks right,so you could bounce things to non-adjacent tracks.You have to sort of plan ahead. We’d do something ontrack one and we could then bounce it together withsomething else on track three or four, and then comeback to two and then four.

How did you end up finding SoundTechniquesandengineer JohnWood?

Good luck. When I took upmy place at Elektra, I think thefirst thing I did - aside from some recording outside ofLondon - the first real session I did was that EricClapton thing [Eric Clapton and the Powerhouse].

That was at Olympic [Studios]?I asked Bill Leader, who was this mentor friend of mineand folk producer. I said I had to do this rock sessionwith a drum kit and everything. He knew Keith Grantat Olympic and he said, “Call Keith.” So I just calledup Keith and he said, “Sure.” That was falling on yourfeet to do your first session with Keith Grant becausehe is a great engineer. Jac [Holzman, Elektra] wasn’tjust putting out Judy Collins and Phil Ochs records -he built his label, in a way, on gimmicks.

What kind of gimmicks was heusing?The thing that enabled him to stop writing ad copy orwhatever it was he was doing before was a series ofrecords by Ed McCurdy called When Dalliance was inFlower (and Maidens Lost Their Heads)– basically bawdysongs. It was a guy with a Burl Ives kind of voice,strumming guitar going, “Hey ho, nonny, nonny, hetook the maiden into the green wood and turned herupside down” - and it sold tons! It was huge. He hadthis other idea that was probably okay - it was the signsof the zodiac [as] a series of easy listening records.There was an American arranger who Jac wouldcommission every six months and he would put outsounds of Libra, you know - an instrumental record thatwas supposed evoke Libras. In those days a lot of stringplayers were much cheaper and better than now. Youcould get London Philharmonic players for twelvepounds for a two hour session. They were probably upto eighty-five dollars in America. He always did hisstring sessions in Sound Techniques. Jac’s doing thesesessions for the next three days and he was going to beat this studio, “Here’s the address, take down fourhundred pounds in cash to pay themusicians” - becauseyou had to pay the musicians in cash. I walked in andI liked the feel of the place and I met John. I think Ihad to come down the next day again and there was abreak and everybody was getting their money andcounting it out and getting cups of tea and I startedtalking to John. By that time I had decided I was goingto do a session and I was thinking I might do it in BillLeader’s kitchen [where many folk records were done],but I already had a few misgivings. I loved Bill and Iloved what he did, but I wanted to set the record thatI was going to do apart. The kind of recording he did –they were wonderful recordings, but sonically they werea little flat. I was sort of in the background thinking,“What am I going to do? I don’t want to hurt Bill’sfeelings.” I mentioned it to John Wood. “Would youever think of doing this record with fiddle and guitar?”and John said, “Yeah, great, sure! Come on down.” He

Mr. Boyd (continued on page 32)/Tape Op#60/31

gave me good rates and I liked going there - it soundedgood. The next thing was the Incredible String Band’sfirst record. John had never heard any of this stuffbefore. Hewas a classical guy - he loved violin concertosand things like that - and we’re playing things like thisand he was like, “Wow. Let’s try putting the mic here.Let’s try this kind of a mic.” It just grew from there. Helearned a lot about this music from me and I learnedabout recording and sound from him.

I like your description of your workingmethodswithJohnandoverlappingalittle bit in the production areas. Hewouldnot feel timidto say somethingnor you vice-versa. It’s hard todevelop that sometimes. Someonethinks, “Well, I’m just the engineer.If they’re only asking me to be theengineer, I’m not going to saysomething.” Was it just a rarecombination of personalities?

Yes. John is a distinct personality and I think he hasalways been. I think it was fortunate for him that hefound me just as much as it was that I found him,because I think that he probably was not the best frontfoot forward for the studio. He’s a grumpy,curmudgeonly guy who does speak his mind. He wasused to doing typical commercial stuff that wasn’t veryinteresting and he’d keep his mouth shut. He was notone to suffer fools gladly. If he had an idiot producer,he’d probably make them feel like they don’t want tocome back - and to be fair, over the years there havebeen times when he and I have gone our separate wayswhen we have disagreed about stuff and it wasn’tshrugged off easily. He got out of the business, but he’snow getting back in a little bit. Jerry Boys came to workat a certain point, at ’68 or ’69 at Sound Techniques,and I was booking so much time. I was block booking– just give me this week and the next week, and thenThursday and Friday I’ll be away for four days and thenI’ll book more time. John was part of that so he said,“I’m not doing all of this stuff.” He would take certainprojects and say, “I’m doing these, but you could do thiswith Victor Gann, Jerry Boys or Roger [Mayer].” By thattime we had three other engineers working there. Ithink Jerry is in a way temperamental and perfect andI think that John as a recording engineer might havedone some things that were more original – but youcouldn’t really choose between them. They were bothgreat recording engineers.

Did you have different interactionswith Jerry?

Jerry is more prepared to shut up, but I never asked himto. I always asked his opinion. He was a little more,“What do you want? I’ll get it for you.” Jerry as amixing engineer is fantastic. That’s a real strength ofhis. John, too – I got spoiled working with Jerry. NowI feel like the ideal thing would be to go make arecord with John and then take it in to mix with Jerry.

You talk a little bit in the book aboutthe lack of sixties trappings on therecordings, like clichéd overusesof things. Was that a consciousdecision at the time?

I had a horror of that. Sometimes musicians would say,“Let’s put a phased guitar panning from right toleft.” That kind of shit. There may be something onThe Incredible String Band – there was one thingwhere they wanted the voice to go left to right veryslowly. The one argument like that that I lost, whichI really regret that still drives me nuts when I hearit - I tried to look for the tape to see if I could undoit - was Wee Tam and The Big Huge, an IncredibleString Band record has a track that I love – it usedto be their closing track in their concerts called“Maya”, and they end with this coda sort of flourishand it all grinds to a halt. Mike plays sitar. It’s arousing chorus. It’s great and you hear it either onceor twice – I can’t remember if there’s one or twoverses, but you hear it at least once, if not twice allthe way through and then the third verse, as it’s justgetting to that climax, they said, “Okay, now we

want to cut it off and have bird songs going intothis next track.” It’s an absolute – you can tell it’s ascissors [cut]. It’s not musical. It’s technical and Ihate it. I said, “No, no, no. We can’t do this.” Theysaid, “Yes, yes, yes, we must do this. This is theconcept. This is what we want to do.” In the end, Ialways felt that for artists’ records, I can argue a lotand I would often fight against things, but at theend of the day I couldn’t convince an artist that thiswas [the way]. I might say, “Do it my way and if itdoesn’t work, we’ll try it your way.” Sometimes,every once in a while there were situations where anartist would say, “I’ve heard it your way and I stillwant to do it my way.” That was one of them. It stilldrives me nuts. I can’t stand to listen to it.

What would you have decided, to gonaturallywhere themusicwasgoing?

Yeah - where it ends in a live show.

`at is one of the problems I havew⁄h a lot of

contemporary recording. You don’t fÕl like ⁄ is

taking place in a room. It’s taking place incyberÍace or in an eleÀronic environment...

Photos from Joe’s bookreading at Time Tested Booksin Sacramento, CA,March 19, 2007

32/Tape Op#60/Mr. Boyd/(Continued on page 34)

In the ’80s you ended up doing R.E.M.’sthird record [Fables of theReconstruction] and 10,000 Maniacs[The Wishing Chair] – these Americanbands were showing up in the UK torecord with you. I remember you hadsome comments at the time going, “Idon’t know why these people arecoming over here and asking to workwith me.” What are your feelingslookingbackonthat era for you?

Great experiences. I have great respect for R.E.M. –both groups – particularly R.E.M., as anorganization, were quite extraordinarily impressive.The way that they were together and the way withthe management – that was before their problemswith Jefferson [Holt, manager] and the six of themwere very much a unit. The fact that they didn’t takeadvances from the label - they were very much incontrol of their own career. I just thought theseguys were totally on it. I had never met a young rockband with such a mature attitude towardseverything. I haven’t really seen the guys from10,000 Maniacs since then, but I stayed friends withNatalie [Merchant]. Mike Mills [R.E.M.] and I becamegood friends. It was a strange experience because Ididn’t feel like I finished the [R.E.M.] recordproperly. I wasn’t happy with the mix - probablybecause I mixed it in Livingston [Recording Studios]with Jerry - but it was when he’d just remodeledLivingston and we booked the big room for eightdays to do the tracks, and we moved in the smallerroom to finish the mix. I’ve never mixed anotherrecord in that room. I’ve always insisted on the bigroom because I can’t stand that room.

Just theway things sound?Yeah, I just don’t hear it. I just don’t hear things right.I’ve done recording in there and overdubs, but I justwill not mix in there. It makes me nuts. Then thegroup was making life a bit difficult because theywanted everything to be turned down, which is theopposite of the way most groups are. I was a bitannoyed when I heard the next record - Stipe’s voiceis right up front. I think at the time I was uneasyabout the record. They were uneasy about therecord. I think we were all relieved the record didpretty well, but I think we all felt dissatisfied withthe final result.

I really like that record. It stands out asa very different record for them.

Now, it’s nice that people now come back to it andsay, “Hey, I just realized that’s actually not sobad! It’s pretty good.”

It’s very different because they had theMitch Easter/Don Dixon recordsbefore that.

I think the second one is fantastic.Reckoning isoneof thebestexamplesofwhat they were doing. I can’timagine that being any better forwhat theywere at that time. Fables...cameoutaskindofadarker,moodierrecord in some respects.

Which - I guess they were feeling that way. Tome, it rainsall the time – so what? I guess it did affect them. WithNatalie and the 10,000 Maniacs, that record hasdisappeared. It’s not even on CD [Wishing Chair]. Ireally liked that album. One of the things thathappened with both albums - and it took me a whileto digest this information - I think I sensed it at thetime, but when I look back on those records – this isslightly the flaw in my philosophy that I espoused oftrying to do everything live in the studio. I realizedthat I was very spoiled. I worked with a lot of fantasticdrummers. Dave Mattacks was a great drummer. Iworked with Steven Gadd. I worked with Earl Palmer.Come on, I worked with a lot of really, really gooddrummers - and Mike Kowalski is a terrific drummer. Hewas on a lot of the Nick Drake records. The truth is thatBill Berry and Jerry Augustyniak - they’re gooddrummers to be in those bands, but they ain’t worldclass drummers. That’s where if somebody wanted tocall me on some of the things that I say about thephilosophy of recording things live, there aren’t asmany good musicians around these days. A lot ofmusicians making records are not that good at playingtheir instruments and in a way, if you say, the only wayyou should make this record is by playing and waitingfor the best performance – you might never get thebest performance because they’re just not really goodenough to treat it, as you say, like a jazz record. Whereis that moment going to happen? The moment needshelp. They need the click track and they needsomething. With both records, I think, the fartheralong we went in finishing the record, overdubbingand mixing – both records – when you have a greattrack, you start adding things on - it just gets better.When you have a weak track, you add things on - itexposes the weakness. It doesn’t fix it. It makes itworse. If you add a harmony and you add anotherguitar, it kind of makes the flaws more obvious. Itdoesn’t cover them over. It’s very difficult to coverthem over. I think I felt at the end of that experienceworking with those guys that maybe I wasn’t the rightproducer for them. I remember when I was working onthe R.E.M. record there was another group working inthe smaller room when we were working in the bigroom, and the two studios share a men’s room. So Iwould find myself standing at the urinal and there wasa guy who was the producer or the bass player (I can’tremember) of the group in the other room, and westarted having a nodding acquaintance. I remembersaying, “How are you guys doing?” and he said, “Well,we got five tracks finished.” This was four days intothe thing. He said, “Yesterday we did the bass drumand we are doing the bass line today.” I just wouldnever have the patience to do a record like that. Theywere doing the A and B side to a single and they laiddown the bass drum and…

A track at a time.The next record the Maniacs did, Peter Asher obviouslyput a click on them. I mentioned that to Peter Buck.I saw him in Austin and talked about it and he said,“The thing with Scott Litt - we didn’t actually use aclick but we rehearsed with a click for days. We did itwith a click and then when we actually came to

record, he took the click off.” The other record that Idid from that year which nobody really knows I did isMiss America by Mary Margaret O’Hara. Whathappened there is I tried to sign her to Hannibal andher manager said, “No. We want to be with a majorlabel.” I got to know them and then she signed withVirgin. She actually said to Simon Draper, Virgin’s A&Rdirector, “I’d like to use Joe Boyd as a producer,” andthey said, “No. We have much more commercial ideasthan that! We’re going to make you a star. We don’twant this Joe Boyd kind of record. You’re going to beproduced by Andy Partridge (From XTC).” They comeover and they check into Rockfield [Studios] in Walesand they start working with Andy Partridge. Shebrought over her Canadian band. It had Hugh Marshon violin and Rusty [McCarthy] on guitar. These guysare really good musicians. They are Toronto players.The bass player and the drummer had been on theroad for years with Chuck Mangione. They were jazzguys. They get to Rockfield and Andy Partridge says,“Okay, let’s put down a drum track. Let’s start it thatway. Are you guys used to using headphones?” Treatsthem like they’re amateurs - A and B, he does it layerby layer and starts making this pop record and theyfreak out. Within a few days Mary Margaret had calledup Virgin and says, “Either Andy leaves or we leave.We’re not making this record with Andy Partridge.”

I can’t imagine that.It was just a total culture clash – transatlantic in a way.The wildest way of recording has its origins in Britain.The British don’t play. They play at music and that’sone reason they make such good records. They’re veryoriginal. They’re very fresh. They don’t have thatfacility that the American musicians have where theycan play any kind of style. There aren’t bars. It’s awhole different ethos. So, Andy and Virgin had inmind making an English pop record with MaryMargaret - and the musicians were like, “Fuck this, wewant to play. We just want to plug in and play. Weknow these songs. Roll the tape.” Andy had neverdone a record like that. He couldn’t imagine doing arecord like that. So I get a rather sheepish call fromVirgin saying, “Oh Joe, how would you like to godown to Rockfield and produce Mary MargaretO’Hara?” I drove a hard bargain and got him to payme a sizeable advance, and then I went down toRockfield and I started working with them. It wasvery, very difficult because Mary, as you know...

I heard she’s a handful.She’s a handful. I love her! She’s a fantastic person -really clever, really wonderful but, she’s very eccentricand she wouldn’t, couldn’t change her time – herCanadian time. She would stay up until six o’clock inthe morning and then sleep until four o’clock in theafternoon. These guys were the kind of guys who likedto run at dawn – like twomiles of road work before thesun gets too hot and come back and eat a bigbreakfast and be ready to go at ten-thirty or eleven -so they were going nuts. I was going nuts. We couldn’tget Mary out of bed. Then we’d have these longsessions and they’d get sleepy at two o’clock in themorning and she’d just be waking up. But there wasthis fantastic moment I’ll never forget. One of the

34/Tape Op#60/Mr. Boyd/(Continued on page 36)

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/35

great songs on that record is “Bobby’s In Trouble” andthere’s this weird, loping rhythm and even with themall playing together, it was difficult because she keptchanging things. We finally did this take of “Bobby’sIn Trouble” and I said, “That’s it. That’s nailed it. It’sfantastic.” It just had this great feel, and she wassinging great and she said, “Yeah, guys that was reallygreat, but I’d like to do it one more time.” Everyonelooked at her like, “Mary, what are you talking about?It’s great!” She said, “Yeah, it is, but I heardsomething.” I said, “What?” She said, “Okay, now, justdo exactly what you did on the last take, but” - andshe pointed to the bass player - “you do exactly thesame thing you did there, but do it one beat later.”Everyone went, “What?!” She said, “Trust me, it’s goingto work.” They were all rolling their eyes going outthere. I pushed the button and we started to take itand that’s the master take. It worked. She was right.

Sheheard it.She heard it. Then what happened was - that was in lateNovember of ’84. Then Jefferson called and askedwould I do an R.E.M. record – this was early January.What had happened with Mary Margaret was wefinished all the tracks, and the idea was over theChristmas period she was going to be back in Toronto.Catherine (her sister, the comedienne) had a studio inher basement, so she was going to get someone inToronto to make rough mixes and work out all theharmony parts, imagine other overdubs that shewanted, talk to musicians and then she’d be ready togo. I’d come in the middle of January and finish therecord with her in Toronto. I finished that record andgot back to London and did that 10,000 Maniacsrecord. Then I got a call from Jefferson saying, “Couldyou do an R.E.M. record?” I said, “Holy shit, I’d loveto do an R.E.M. record.” But I can’t because theyneeded it right away. So I turned it down. I went toToronto and I had this Chinese dinner with MaryMargaret and her manager. I’ll never forget it. We weresitting in this Chinese restaurant in Toronto and there’sa blizzard and the snow is piling up outside thewindow and Mary Margaret is explaining why shehadn’t done anything – why she had completelyrethought the whole album and she thought that shewanted to record some new stuff. She hadn’t figuredout any of the vocal stuff and she was re-thinkingsome of the things we had talked about. She wantedto take some things off that we had put on and I’mlooking at the snow and I’m thinking, “Fuck. I’m nevergoing to get out of here. I’m going to be snowed intothis fucking city with this mad woman.” I’m hauntedby this phone call that [I] had from Jefferson, so atsome point toward the end of the evening I said,“Mary, I get the feeling you have a lot of strong viewsabout how to do this record. It sounds to me as if youwould kind of like to produce it yourself.” She said,“Joe that is so perceptive of you. That is sothoughtful. I love you. I think you’re wonderful. I’veloved working with you, but I do really feel like I knowwhat I want to do with this record.” I said, “Well, I’llcall Simon and see what he says” - knowing Simonwould probably love to get rid of her. First I calledJefferson to say, “Do you guys still need a producer?”

He said, “Yeah, come on down to Athens.” I calledSimon Draper and I said, “I think Mary wants toproduce this record herself.” They agreed to give me acredit and pay me off or something.

How much of the original stuff wasused?

All of it – all those tracks I did in Wales -but it didn’tcome out for five years. Five years! Michael Brookfinished it off and he’s the one who got her to finishher vocals and mixed it and everything - butuncredited on the record, those are all my tracks.

That’s pretty strange. How did you endup moving into more of the worldmusic stuff? Was part of that due tostartingHannibal?

When I started Hannibal, my first signings were Richardand Linda Thompson, Joe King Carrasco, GeoffMuldaur - but I’d always (going back to when I was akid), when I was twenty-something I would getstoned and listen to Le Mystere Des Voix Bulgares. Iloved little bits of African music. I knew about the AliBrothers – that was another great thing to get stonedand listen to. I loved Edith Piaf. I loved all kinds ofshit. In the seventies I got totally into Carlos Gardeland the tango. I was gobbling up stuff. When I wasrunning Hannibal, my brother (who was a lawyer)took a year off from being a lawyer and worked withme. The idea was if it worked out, he would run theNew York office and I would run the London office.I’m in the office every day scrambling trying to makeenough records to fill the orders for [Richard andLinda Thompson’s] Shoot Out the Lights because theywere selling like crazy. We didn’t have enough creditbecause distributors don’t pay you for 90 to 120 days.The pressing plants need paper in 60 days. So I wasgetting put on hold by pressing plants, scramblingaround checking over duplicate parts from Englandand driving them to pressing plants in upstate NewYork, hoping that we get enough to fill the order forPickwick on the West Coast, because Richard was outthere this week on tour and I’m going nuts. In themiddle of all this my brother says, “Listen, I’ve got anidea. Let’s do a series of vocal harmony records, likeLadysmith Black Mambazo or The Ali Brothers. Youcould say that in that idea that he presented to mewere the ideas that would dominate world music fiveyears later. And my response was, “Listen, I love thatshit. It’s fantastic. I’d love to sit at home and listento that stuff, but I’m trying to run a record companyand that is such an uncommercial idea!” Of course, heturned out to be totally right and I missed the boat.I loved that stuff - I just didn’t believe there was amarket for it. In a way that was [what] the whole“world” term was about, was trying to find a place toput them in the record store. Because in 1983 therecord store had a section called “International Folk”,or something called “Foreign”, or something called“Ethnic”, or “Imports” or whatever. I think the triggerfor me was in 1985. I went to the Fairport Conventionannual summer festival where they play and invitepeople, and they had this weird group on calledMosaic. It was made up of a couple of Irish musiciansand a Dutch guy and this Hungarian singer. It was

boring kind of pan-Euro folk noodling. I went off toget a beer. As I was walking away from the stage Iheard the singer come on and it was an Hungariansinger singing a Bulgarian song using open throattechnique – just this incredible piercing noise – justher on stage singing a capella. “Whoa! What’s that?”Afterwards I went backstage and I met her. I said,“Wow that Bulgarian song you did was fantastic!” Shesaid, “Oh you like Bulgarian music?” She said, “Cometo Hungary next summer because a bunch of myfriends and I are all going down to this huge festivalin the mountains. It’s a festival which has this hugeassemblage of traditional musicians from all over thecountry.” I said, “I’ll be there.” I actually tried to setup doing a documentary about it. I pitched it to BBCand Channel Four and I got this woman who spokeRussian to come and translate for me - just beforeI’m leaving, 4AD puts out Le Mystere Des VoixBulgares and John Peel starts playing the shit out ofit and it goes onto the charts. I’m feeling reallystupid because if I had listened to my brother... TheHungarian singer who invited me to go to Bulgariawas Marta Sebestyen, who is a wonderful singerwhen she sings in Hungarian. I went to Budapestand I ended up licensing music. I went to Bulgariaand met all these people there. I went back in thewinter and made records and put them out and Ifound Ivo Papasov & His Bulgarian Wedding Bandand started this whole adventure. One thing led toanother and I was part of the committee thatinvented the term “World Music”.

I was surprised by that, but it makessense.Youhavetohavesomewheretoputtherecord.GoingsomewherelikeBulgaria to make a record, what arethe challenges? Is it the languagebarrier? You’ve got to educateyourself about themusic.

Yeah, but it was wonderful. It was a bit of a challenge, butit was great fun. I met wonderful people. A lot of whatI did in world music would not have been possible if Idid not speak French. I learned French a long time agowhen I was a teenager in school. I’ve gotten to bepretty fluent in it now, but twenty years ago I was justokay. In Bulgaria, the woman who was the producer offolk music for the state radio - she didn’t speak anyEnglish, but she spoke French. My engineers spokeFrench much more than English. Then when I startedworking with West Africans, Toumani Diabaté and allthat, we always communicated in French. I’m not sureI could have done the Songhai records [without it].French was a door into Spanish. I learned a lot ofSpanish so I could make a lot of stuff like that. Thatwas pretty key. The radio studios in Bulgaria were great.It was all Telefunken and old stuff.

All the good old stuff.The sad thing is, you meet this time and time again – Iremember the next time I came back to Bulgaria, Imade some comment like, “Let’s put this through theEMT plate” and they said, “Oh, we got rid of that.” Isaid, “You got rid of it? Why?” “Oh, there was someAmerican who came through here and he had one ofthe Lexicons (not even that, something worse), and

36/Tape Op#60/Mr. Boyd/(Continued on page 38)

he said he’d give us a good deal on that and he’d eventake the EMT off our hands”. Oh God, I bet that’ssitting now in Ocean Way [Studios] in L.A. I saw thatall the time - the plundering of studios and“improving” them.

Wi thou t ha v ing a r e a l g o o dgrounding, people usually thinkmodern is good when it comes torecording technology, and yetthings many things haven’t reallyimproved in fifty years.

Quite the contrary. In Cuba, Alfredo Rodriguez and hisKorean investors built the big fancy studio in Cuba -and nobody in Cuba wants to use the great EGREMStudios where the Buena Vista Social Club and¡Cubanismo! were done. “Why would you want to goin there? It’s so difficult.” You go in these modernstudios and it sounds like shit.

They’re different. Progress isn’t alwaysprogress. I first learned your namethroughPinkFloydasateenager,andthe story is often told that you werehoping that you could have producedtheir first record. If that hadhappened, if EMI had let it happen –even Geoff Emerick had a hard timecoming back and engineering TheBeatles – if thathadhappenedandyouended up producing the first PinkFloyd record, what would you havedonedifferently?

I think Piper at the Gates of Dawn is a pretty goodrecord. It’s not like you could say, “Oh well, NormanSmith messed up”, because they made a goodrecord. I think “Bike” is a fantastic track. I guessmy fantasy is not so much about soundingdifferent, but about hanging on to Syd. I got alongpretty well with Syd and since then I’ve had peopletell me that he never felt comfortable with Smithand the whole thing got kind of out of hand forhim. Listen, I don’t think I would have had a magicwand that would have prevented him from takingacid every day for seven days, but that’s the part –it’s not so much listening to the record andthinking, “Oh I could have made a better recordthan this or I could have made a better sound thanthis” - although I think that there is somethingabout “Arnold Layne” and “See Emily Play”, whichwere both done at Sound Techniques with John[Wood], and I think it punches more.

John’s recordings had a very excitingsound to them.

The room was fantastic, and he knew the room.With Pink Floyd there seemed to be adichotomy between their recordedself and their live self, especially inthose days.

Have you ever heard the soundtrack to Tonite Let’s AllMake Love in London?

Yeah, “Nick’s Boogie”?Yeah and “Interstellar Overdrive” – that’s what theysounded like. I did those two records. That is whatthey sounded like with Syd.

Doing “Arnold Layne” - that song waspart of their set, but was it a longer,jamming thing?

Yeah, they would play it and do a jam on it.So you just had to say, “Let’s rein it ina little bit and change the lyricson the B side”?

Yeah.Another record that is reallyfascinating is Shoot Out the Lights.It’s a really emotional, heavy record,but Richard Thompson has gone onrecord saying it’s not about theirsituation.

I think it was subconscious. A lot of things that are trueyou don’t know are true. I believe Richard that he didnot set out to write songs about breaking up with hiswife, but I think that there were certainly tensions inthe marriage. The marriage was definitely difficult inthe period he was writing the songs and whether theywere subconscious wish-fulfillment or projection ofsomething….

Were the sessions reflective of anythinglike that?

No. This is a story that was told before; maybe more inEngland than here. It was a very curious circumstancebecause I set up Hannibal - Island agreed to back meinitially and that didn’t last very long – and I went toRichard and his manager Jo Lustig because I knew hehad been dropped. Somebody at Chrysalis had toldme, “We’re not going to renew their contract.”Sunnyvista didn’t sell. I said, “I’m making this label.It’s called Hannibal. Come on - let’s make a greatrecord together.” Jo Lustig said, “No way. We’re goingto sign with United Artists.” I said, “Really? How’sthat going to happen?” He said, “We’re doing a dealwith Gerry Rafferty and Hugh Murphey” who were hotbecause of “Baker Street”. Hugh Murphey was a bigfolk fan. He had done a lot of folk records for Deccaover the years and Rafferty knew Richard. I went toRichard and said, “Richard, have you ever worked withGerry Rafferty, the way that those guys work? Becausethey make pop records. They really make slicksounding records – very tight, all overdubbing andcontrol and focus.” He said, “Well, I like Gerry. He’s agood guy and I think it’ll be interesting. We need todo something different. I think it’ll work.” I said,“Don’t say I didn’t warn you.” They started working onthe record. I’m getting occasionally, either throughRichard or Linda, reports that it’s not going thatgreat, but they’re finishing it. I hear that theyfinished recording, but they aren’t mixing it yet andthey have a few overdubs left to do. Richard has a fewguitar solos to do. Then, the next thing I know,someone tells me to call Richard. I call Richard andRichard said – he never would have admitted he waswrong – he said, “Well, Joe, it didn’t quite work outthe way I hoped and I’m not that happy.” The more Igot into it, I discovered this incredible thing. I’m notsure whether this is the true reason, but I rememberbecoming convinced that I had discovered what wasactually going on. The first thing I found out was thatthe contract had never been signed. They were

making a record, but had no deal. They got the moneyand the production deal with United Artists, but theywant to sign the artists through them. Thensomebody told me that Rafferty and Murphey had thisplan to set up a management company. Even thoughLustig was the one who brought Richard to them,Lustig was a very abrasive guy. A lot of people didn’tlike him. He was insisting on having an overrideroyalty that would go straight to him for executiveproducer credit or something like that. They wereresisting this and holding off signing the contract.Meanwhile they’re spending United Artists’ moneymaking the record. Then they get to the end and theyneed Richard to do a few more guitar solos andRichard has decided he doesn’t like the record.Richard says, “I’m not going to finish the record. I’mnot going to sign the contract and I’m not going tofinish the record.” It all suddenly explodes andeverything is in meltdown and it’s a completedisaster. So I go to Richard and I say, “Listen,” he’dused Dave Pegg, Dave Mattacks and Simon Nicholworking with Rafferty, so they knew all the songs. Isaid, “You guys are totally rehearsed and ready to go.Let’s go into the studio and do it in three days forHannibal.” He said, “Great idea. I’d love this. I can’twait to get out of this. It’s been kind of a nightmare.”I said, “One condition - the money that we save bydoing it so quickly, I’m going to put into tour support.You’ve got to do an American tour.” I talked to JoeLustig. He said, “What’s this about an American tour?I don’t want Richard to go to America until he playsCarnegie Hall.” I said, “Joe you’re full of shit. This iswhat Richard needs to do. This will transform hiscareer. He needs to get out. America doesn’t knowRichard Thompson. They don’t know who the fuck heis. They’ve never heard him play. They don’t knowwhat a genius he is. He’s got to get out there and playThe Bottom Line, Great American Music Hall and allthose places. Forget Carnegie Hall. That will comelater. Let him play these places and that’s the deal. Ifyou don’t agree, fuck it. I’m not going to do itbecause I don’t want to make this record and see itlanguish without an American audience.” I calledRichard and I told him what I said and he said, “Well,I want to tour in America so I’ll tell Joe we have adeal.” That’s what happened. We went into the studio,bang! We did it in three days - fantastic, great tracksbut, then the budget got a little ballooned becauseLinda was very pregnant and she was having troublebreathing. So everything was done except her vocals.She and I would go into the studio night after nightfor five nights and do her vocals line by line.

She’d just bewinded,more or less.Yes. That’s the story of that record.One thing you bring up that’s reallyimportant with a lot of this is youcreated a management companyearlyon.Yousaid,“If I’mgoingtogetinvolved with this record, I want tomake sure this band on this recorddoes well.” That’s a lot of foresightand that’s also stepping outside therealmof just being a producer.

38/Tape Op#60/Mr. Boyd/(Continued on page 40)

E L E C T R O N I C S Visit GreatRiverElectronics.com or call 651-455-1846

THE NEW

“I’ve never used an EQ that sounds this good.”-Larry Crane, Tape Op Jan 2005

Great River

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/39

When I set out, all I wanted was to be a producer. To me,management was a pain in the ass. I didn’t want any partof it, but I realized very early on with The Incredible StringBand – they set the tone in a way because they werefolkies. They played Scottish folk clubs. I took one look atthem and I said, “This is not your audience. You need toplay for freaks. You need to play for the people who listento Pink Floyd. You need to play for people who listen toThe Grateful Dead. I don’t want you going to folk clubs.”It’s just something that happens with almost everything Iever do in the studio. It’s not a category. It is slightly toone side or the other of the category. You can’t just put iton the rock band conveyor belt and expect it to work.

I went looking for records of yours. I wentto the folk section and there’s the firstFairport Convention record. I said, “Doyou have any Incredible String Band?”and they said, “Incredible String Bandis in psychedelic.”

Exactly! I think it’s true of almost everything I’ve ever beeninvolved in – not so much as a producer becausesometimes I do things for hire like R.E.M., who had acareer - but where I would take initiative and startsomething up. The only way it was ever going to workwas for me to get involved. Back in the ’60s I managedpeople and I was determined not to get into that in the’70s because I thought I was going to be a film producer– even when I was passionate about something like theMcGarrigle sisters. I watched that first record (which Ithink is one of the best things I was ever involved in) diebecause the cover was crap, because Warner Brothers hadit on the schedule. Kate got pregnant and cancelled thetour - and thank God she got pregnant because she hadMartha [Wainwright, sister of Rufus Wainwright]. But theyshould have held the record. All kinds of things lead meto say, “I’m going to have to have my own label.” Evenas a label head, a lot of the things I would do dealingwith music artists would technically be moremanagement. I would set up the tours and a lot of thatworked pretty well. When Ryko bought the company theysaid they couldn’t do that. We don’t want our peoplespending time setting up tours. Sometimes we did itanyway without them knowing. That was the only way tomake it work. Everything I’ve ever done has beensomething that you’ve had to figure out - not just how torecord it, but how to get it across to people in a way thatisn’t the customary way to go about it. It wasn’tsomething that I had a vision would be a great idea. Itwas more of a defensive response to “What the hell am Igoing to do with this record unless I get it to the rightaudience and get this group out to the right audience?”

What do you find yourself doing now…besides writing a book?

Well, I finally got a performer who does absolutelyeverything I tell him to.

You?Yeah. It’s fun. I’m here to middle of April doing lots morestuff and then I’m going back to London to sit down andwrite the world music book.r

www.joeboyd.co.uk

40/Tape Op#60/Mr. Boyd/(Fin.)

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/41

Vibe is EverythingBob Power

byAllen Farmelo

photo byRonaldPorty

42/Tape Op#60/Mr. Power

Whatchangedproduction-wisebetweenthe first and secondwaveofhip-hop?

The really big difference between the first and secondwave of hip-hop, for me, is the use of samples. Oneof the reasons A Tribe Called Quest was so amazing isthat it was the first time samples were used in a reallyelaborate musical construction - particularly thesecond album, Low End Theory. That was [Q-]Tip andAli [Shaheed Muhammad]’s real genius. It’s aninteresting point because the constructions, if youlisten to Low End Theory musically, are very complex.If you had good session players sit down and playthat, it wouldn’t sound the same because part of thecool thing about samples in hip-hop is that theyweren’t meant to go together. As a guitar player, Iwould play on a new track without monitoring the oldone, and it didn’t sound right. I soon realized, “Ohright, I’ve got to play to the old track to get it tosound right.” Another thing about sampling is that ahook can be a sound, and that’s really cool. So, Ithink the palette has gotten so much larger and morevaried on every level. Stetsasonic were right on theend of the first wave, and Daddy-O and Prince Paulwere visionaries, though they kind of got lost in theshuffle at that point. Their second record [In FullGear] was a brilliant sample-based record.

Do you see any technology sincesampling thathas affected the soundofmusic asmuch?

I consider sampling as part of MIDI, and that to me wasreally part of the same revolution. Between the lateseventies and mid-eighties, it was a really bigchange. I was actually scoring for TV at the time, andI was working for a more traditional, old-schoolmusician who would write charts. With MIDI a lot ofguys from that school fell by the wayside. A lot ofengineers said, “That’s not music,” because the shitmay have sounded super primitive around that time- especially to those guys who were used to sittingbehind the console for years. The same arrangerwould set down the charts and count it off. Theengineers would put up the same mics in the sameway. I’m not saying it was lazy, but it was sort ofcomplacent. When MIDI came out a lot of these guyssaid, “This isn’t music!” and they have been sellinginsurance for the last thirty years. The same thinghappened when hip-hop first came into New YorkCity studios. I had played, oddly, in black bands inhigh school and as an undergrad on the soul band

circuit. Other than the fact that hip-hop was amassive paradigm shift, or reflected a paradigm shiftin the art forms of the black community, it was allthe same thing to me. Unfortunately to this dayengineering is kind of a white male boys club - andwas very much so back then. For a lot of those guys,kids would come in dressed in what the engineersthought were funny clothes, smoking weed, sluggin’40s. I mean, you have to understand that a kidcomes from a certain environment, a toughenvironment, and walks into a nice recording studiowhere everybody pads around in expensive shoes.You’ve got to realize where people come from andsort of give them a little room to reflect that withoutsaying, “What the fuck is wrong with these people?”People would walk in with turntables and theengineer would say, “Well, what do you want to do?”The artist would say, “We are going to put the trackdown this way.” The engineer would say, “Don’t youwant to lock to time code?” “Time code? What do youmean, man?” I think in a weird way there wasperhaps an undertone of unconscious racism there onthe part of a lot of engineers. When people walk inthe door, you have to say, “Hey what are you doingand what do you need?” I find that if you focus andwork at getting your humanist values in the rightplace, everything else will fall into place.

You use loops in a lot of your stuff.Sometimes they can be heard, butnot always.

I often have a bunch of little things happening, and ifyou listen sometimes you hear them and say, “Ohcool, there is a loop happening there.” Much of thetime, even on rock records, there is a lot of stuff inthere that you don’t hear that is really more of a feelthing. One of my theories about record making ingeneral is that if the track is rhythmically buoyant, orsort of interesting enough, then you don’t have to sellthe song so hard. One of the problems with badlyproduced music and demos that come in is the timeis not compelling. Even if it is somebody playing anacoustic guitar and singing, it’s got to have this thingto it. You are immediately drawn into it, and you canreally listen to what is going on.

With loops and sample-based hip-hop, where you are using loopsagainst each other, are you tryingto find the buoyancy in theinteraction of those elements?

I don’t think it is something that people set out to do,but an interesting byproduct of loop-based stuff is it’sall in the rub of different people’s time feels workingat the same time. I’ve been playing funk music sincethe late sixties, and in the mid- to late eighties whenMIDI and quantizing were in, things got tight, but notthat funky. Then I started listening back to myfavorite records - Curtis Mayfield is a perfect example- the shit is all over the place! Bongo Eddie playspercussion on a lot of Curtis Mayfield’s stuff, and Ihave a joke with a lot of my musician friends that itsounds like he is playing in the next room. Then Irealized that the funk is really in the rub, and if youlisten to hip-hop stuff, that’s when it’s cool. If youtake a loop that is against something else and yourecycle or beat slice it and make it perfectly in time,it totally loses the flavor.

In the past there have been twohumans,or theaccidentof two loops.Do you think we can now programthese vibes in there?

That’s a good question. I only use stuff like beat slicingwhen I really have to. Usually the only things thatreally line up pretty well are kicks and snares. That canbe kind of dodgy, still. Occasionally there is one hit inthe midst of a four bar loop that’s off, and I’ll do sometime stretching in front of it or actually cut and pastethat snare, but for the most part I love the rub. That’swhat makes it really interesting. Again, how much istoo much is up to one’s judgment. Perfect records areboring. Knowing how to keep the good mistakes is thefine line of production that we are always walking nomatter how many records we do.

Thisgets tied intovibe.Whatare someofthe things that you actually do as aproducer to help create andmaintain the vibe?

I am a slave to the song. When artists ask, “What’s yourapproach?” I say, “My approach is always whateverthe song wants to be.” So, it really depends on thesong as to what elements you think would be mosteffective at pulling forth the vibe of that particularsong. If a song does not start taking on a life of itsown at a certain point, and doesn’t start telling youwhat to do as opposed to you telling it what to do -it’s not happening. It’s a weird thing to say, buteverybody who makes records knows what I amtalking about. If the song comes out exactly the wayyou had it in your head it’s going to be boring. Thereis that wonderful, wonderful point where the songtakes on a life of its own and it’s great.

So what kind of things can you do to getto that point?

No matter what happened at home when you left thatmorning, nomatter how bad the subway was, nomatterhow pissed you are with the record company, you putthe headphones on and you are on mic, as a singer forexample, and you must get into that world in the musicand not worry that the lights are too bright and stufflike that. I do everything I can to make the person ascomfortable as they can be. Interestingly, there’s a wayto read a chart and do that at the same time. Anotherthing on the engineering tip which I think is really key

BBoobb PPoowweerr is one of those names you might know not from reading liner notes, but instead from listeningto vocal ad-libs on records he’s produced or engineered. In the mid-eighties, PPoowweerr found himself engineeringat Calliope Studios in NYC, home to many groups that were part of what he calls the second wave of hip-hop.Bands like Stetsasonic, The Jungle Brothers, Tribe Called Quest and De La Soul went to PPoowweerr to track and mixrecords loaded with samples, heavy bass tones and enormous 808 kick drums. By the nineties, he was producingrecords with D’Angelo, Erykah Badu, Me’shell Ndegecello and others at the center of modern soul music. Thenew millennium has seen him mixing or producing with The Roots, India.Arie, Ozomatli, and more recently theSeattle-based rock band Maktub and singer-songwriter Andrea Wittgens. His is a career that has required anopenness to innovative recording strategies, new technology and most importantly, groundbreaking music. Aspreparation for this career, PPoowweerr cites his experiences as a guitar player on the midwestern soul circuit as muchas his two university degrees in music. Today, PPoowweerr is a self-proclaimed “gear junkie” who remains as opento new recording strategies and technologies as ever. Every time we talk, he mentions a new piece of gear thathe’s excited about trying, or a new technique he’s discovered. However, one soon gets the sense that a spiritualcompass guides his work as much as anything else, and that vibe truly is everything when it comes to makingrecords with him. We hung out in his Manhattan studio and talked about everything from karma to kilohertz.

Mr. Power (continued on page 44)/Tape Op#60/43

- and this is something that a lot of assistants don’tunderstand - is that when someone comes in to work,especially an MC or singer, they should be able to walkup to the microphone, make a couple of noises and youshould press record. Go! There is no reason not to havea mic and signal processing chain all up and working.Not letting the technology get in the way is a giantthing. The whole point is to make the tweaking processas transparent as possible when you are trying to becreative. One of the things I try to do when I write orproduce is to make a concerted effort not to “fix the hi-hat”, meaning don’t get hung up on the small details.For better or worse I am a very detail-orientedpractitioner. But you have to know when to put yourblinders on and when to concentrate on the things thatare most important to whatever stage of the processyou are working in. That’s where a lot of not-so-experienced engineers fall down, because they are like,“Oh wait, I gotta move this...” It’s important to not giveup - you always have to got to be trying to make it alittle bit better, while at the same time, you also haveto know that there are certain stages of the processwhere you have to get going quickly and then shut thefuck up.

So a tech day could be really beconstrued as getting the vibe for thenext recording project.

With rhythm tracks - if I have money, time and we aregoing to do a couple of days of rhythm tracks - thefirst day is just a setup day. That is great because youdon’t have the guitar player sitting around for threehours while you doing the drums and then have to goin and be inspired. Sometimes I’ll say, “If you go outfor dinner and want to come back around nine andsee what’s going on, if you guys feel like playing, wewill probably be good by then.” The players will loveyou more for it because it means that you are takingcare with how they come off on the record. I’ve neverfound anybody who wasn’t happy that I was taking alot of time to make them sound as good as possible.Again, if you approach that from a humanist level, allthe other things fall into place.

But they know that is just a day to getsounds, so the pressure is off a little bit.

Right. Now if I have session people coming in, I don’thave that luxury. You really have to go for it and getit quickly. There is a way, with an assistant, toactually have most of the drum kit going before theguy starts playing. When the drummer comes in andsits down, obviously your levels are going to change,the placements are going to change a little, but youshould pretty much know what mics you are going touse and they should be set, there should be signalflowing, and you should know if there is any part ofthe kit that is going to be a technical problem. I usedrum techs - and again, that is another expense thatmost people don’t usually have the luxury for - butI’ve learned a lot from them. There is a guy calledMike Burns whom I have known since he was 18 yearsold – he’s in his thirties now – and he works with[Steve] Gadd and Paul Simon… he’s been witheverybody. Every time I’ve had him set up the kit itsounds great real fast. Period.

Is he working on the drums strictly, or ishe also mic’ing it up?

No, he’s just working on the drums. Occasionally he’llhave other stuff to say, which is actually really handy.There is another guy, Gregg Keplinger - a sort oflegendary guy that I worked with in Seattle a coupleof years ago - who was really amazing and apparentlydid a lot of the big Seattle records. I did a rock bandcalled Maktub out there a couple of years ago - greatband with a really great drummer. Greg was the kindof guy where you would be in the control room andhe’d hit something and you’d say, “The snare soundsa little baskety, it’s a little hollow and big, butdefinitely hollow.” He’d say, “Oh, okay” and he wouldgo “urt” and turn one thing a tiny bit and all of asudden it was right there. Whereas guys who are notnecessarily masters, they’ll be “urt… urt… urt… Letme get some tape.”

And it changes too much.And it takes forever. A master usually looks at it andsays, “That will do it.”

It seems we are in an era where morepeople are off consoles and aremixing and matching mic pres, EQsand compressors.

I think we are in a golden age of professional audio rightnow. A second golden age, because people are makingemulations of the old stuff that actually works better.Anybody who has ever owned Neves knows what I’mtalking about – it’s usually switches and caps. One ofthe reasons I like modern microphones that are built onolder principles is that they sound the same every day.I like to be able to mix and match my signal chain fromthe microphone all the way up to what the media is,something that is optimized for what I am recording.On a very large level, if I can afford it and I’m doing arock band, we cut the rhythm tracks to analog tape,then the poor assistant spends a day transferring, andwe finish the record in the box. I think that’ssomething that all the geeks who are going to bereading this magazine, including myself, will hear. Thatand the giant differences of mic pres. I am often asked,“I’m setting up a studio for myself, what should I do?”Get a really great mic pre. It makes more of a differencethan the microphone itself. I’ve done things with agood pre and a [SM]57 that just sound fabulous. In themodern context it’s a little dark, but you can alwaysdeal with that - you can always open it up. I’ve beena Neve guy for years. I have twenty-four channels ofNeve in racks of eight. I mean it’s nuts, but over theyears I just collected it to that point. And when I goto a room that might not have that stuff, I bring thestuff with me. Also, I have been totally loving APIslately. I have a couple that are racked up, and I love tobe able to track with APIs. There is just somethingabout the speed and the punch, and it’s not flavorlessby any means. I love to mix and match gear when I amrecording - it’s actually really important. On the mixend, however, any pro mixer who tells you that they arenot drifting more and more towards plug-ins and lessand less toward analog inserts is lying. Even the analogstalwarts are understanding that, for the ease of recalland changes, man it’s great! I picked up the mantle of

becoming a better in-the-box mixer about two yearsago. I am fascinated by the fact that every time I dowhat is fundamentally an in-the-box mix, I’m stilllearning something new. Funny too, it wasn’t really asurvival thing. I feel that if you make fundamentalchanges to what you love based on making money, itfucks everything up. You have to really have a passionfor the thing and then everything else falls into place.I took the challenge of being a better in-the-box mixermuch like I looked at MIDI and said, “Wow, all the guyswho said this isn’t music, look what they missed!” So,I do about half of my work at my place now. My roomhappens to be terrifically accurate the way I have it setup. I cheat a little, since I have a really high-end, two-mix bus that I go out through – a lot of Pendulumstuff, API, GML, Tube-Tech - really nice stuff. I canreally mix and match on the two-bus the way I wantto. That said, we’re at the point now that when I portthose mixes completely in the box, it compares quitewell. With digital EQ, I find because of the lessenedphase shift issues, you’ve got to throw the fadersaround a lot more than you do with analog EQ. I workon something in the box, and I find that I’m often +8or -10 on things, where if I did that with an analog EQit would totally suck the life out if it. I also find thatdigital seems much less forgiving in terms of thetimbral anomalies between the different ranges ofsomeone’s voice and their proximity to the microphone.We know about slew rates and tape compression, sothat’s an obvious reason why analog would smooth itout a little bit. But for some it’s an intangible. I findmyself doing a lot more automated EQ on mixes than Iever would have thought I would have done, and Ithink, “Wow, what did you do in the old days?” It justdidn’t seem to sound that weird at different places. Onthe other side of the coin, there were records in theanalog era where I did automate like that. For example,I mixed a Chaka Khan album - it was just so incrediblythrilling to throw up the fader and hear that. There isalmost no singer with a greater dynamic range or pitchrange in the business. But it kind of worked against usfor a minute, because when she sang low and breathyshe would really come in on the mic. When she singsreally high and screams – it’s almost like a mutedtrumpet, it’s got that edge at 4 kHz that sounds likepaper ripping – she would pull back. So, the proximityeffect on low end was exactly the opposite of what youneed to happen. It was fascinating. So, we actually hadher coming back on five or six different faders withtotally different signal chains, and we automated that.That’s a luxury. But my thing is I don’t care how youget there. It’s the old Duke Ellington thing: “If itsounds good, it is good.” There are certain practicesthat we should follow because we know that most ofthe time it will make a positive difference. But for themost part, if it sounds good, it’s great.

Are you summing in the box?I am summing in my [Yamaha] 02R96. At this point it ismore like a giant mouse than anything else. As timegoes on I use less and less from the 02R96 for severalreasons. Number one, recall is easier if everything isat unity and I just have to recall my outboard stuff.Number two, what I do now when I mix on an SSL is

44/Tape Op#60/Mr. Power/(Continued on page 46)

spend a half a day to a day here on each song, gettingit to sound as good as I can without any outboard,then we take it up to the big room, split it out ontothe faders, and four hours later it is phenomenal.Compared to where we came from with Pro Tools anddigital audio, I think Digi has been doing atremendous job both operationally and sonically - HDsounds quite good. There are still issues. I have moreof an issue with getting the spatial things happeningwhen mixing in the box than anything else -particularly front-to-rear combined with side-to-side.You can have stuff going out, kind of forty-fivedegrees left or right, and then you can have stuffthat’s panned really hard at ninety degrees, but I havetrouble getting things in between those spaces.Spatially, mixing in the box is challenging and I thinkeverybody will say the same thing. That said, I lovethe challenge. It’s not like every time I went up to aJ or K room that it was perfect or imperfect, but thechallenges are very, very different. I do love beingable to get a mix pretty far here and then take it upto an SSL room and finish it off. That’s great becauseby the time you get to the big room, you’re not gatingthe kick drum at $2,000 a day. Psychologically it’s abig deal as well.

Do you stem out the individual tracksand sum with the SSL?

Yeah, I’ve started working at unity where I leave thefaders flat and split out into stereo pairs, and I have away of organizing my stuff so that when I take it up toan analog desk and put the faders flat, it’s exactly thesame. It’s really, really great. At first, I started usingfaders on my desk and some EQ from the 02R96, but Irealized that unless I really had to, it was less flexible.

Are you doing much analog processingduring your preparation beforegoing to the big room, before hittingan SSL? Will you go out to one of yourEQs or compressors and come back in?

Well, yeah. If I have program EQ on stuff, I replicate itup there and use that as a point of departure.

So you use the same analog pieces there,rather than print it?

Right, and some of my stuff travels with me. I try to keepmy recall written simply in the track’s comments box.But every studio has a GML EQ and Tube-Techs. TheAPI and Pendulum compressors I either bring or I canrent. It’s funny, I am just thinking about all the piecesof gear I am mentioning, and I hope this comesacross: everybody is going to have a different thing tosay about a different piece of gear. Some people aregoing to say, “I can’t believe that he likes the API2500 Bus Compressor. Man, the SSL kicks the shit outof it!” It just really depends on who you are, how youdo things and how things are working that day. Musicis a moving target sonically. It’s never the same twice!That’s one of the things that I love about it.

How much of that tallness in yoursound is you, and how much of that isthe history of your mixing andproducing, whom you have workedwith and the kind of sounds you havebeen recording?

That’s the wonderful, incredibly complex matrix of beingsonic practitioners of music, because music isconstantly changing people’s decisions about whatinstruments to use with what tonal coloration, whatkind of part it is going to play - and it really boils downto what’s best for the song. As a producer you alwayshave to say, “What does the song want to do, what isgoing to represent this song sung by this artist as bestwe can?” So, if you have one part of a record that’srecorded on an answering machine and another part ofa record that’s the London Symphony Orchestra, fine. Ifthe songs want that thing, then it’s your responsibilityto pull that together. What’s on tape (and I use thatterm all the time even though it’s “what’s on DAW”) hassuch a giant bearing on how a mix will sound. Mostpeople sort of have a way they approach things thatwill tilt it one direction or the other. There are certainproducers with whom I always feel like it’s a goodmarriage when I mix. Jay Dee, the hip-hop producerwho passed away recently, is a perfect example. He wasreally good at distributing his low end, his kick and hisbass. People don’t pay enough attention to tuningdrum samples, much less drums, but his kick and hisbass were always well delineated and he had a realinnate sense for where to place things in the sonicspectrum. Not so much with EQ, but just with thefundamental timbre, the instrument and the range itwas playing in. It’s an old adage amongst engineers: “Agreat mix is a great arrangement.” I think thateverybody who mixes will say exactly the same thing.

You’ve been mastering your ownwork more and more, and now forothers. Why?

I’m going to take a lot of heat for saying this, but franklyI’m tired of going back five times, which is mostly afactor of the loudness wars. I have all this great gear,and I know what I want it to sound like, so I justfinally said to myself that I should go ahead and startmastering my own stuff. From that, I’ve started tomaster for select outside clients.

You’ve said you work hard to get thingsloud, but not squished. What do youdo to achieve that?

That’s sort of my quest - lots of creative limiting andcompression. But when I say “creative”, I mean youreally have to work. That’s my feeling about it. I don’tthink there’s one method. It’s like anything: you try this,you try that. You see what works best. So it’s just sort oflooking for the right piece for that particular song. Thereare negative artifacts of limiting that you just try tominimize - distortion, particularity on the release. Also,if you limit badly it will take away all the pop, becauseyou are taking the attack transients out. It’s funnybecause I am hedging a lot about it, because there areall sorts of different things that I do. In fact, some ofwhat I do crunches the front end of the A to D, but if Ican hear it in a crunchy way, then it’s not cool. There arealso things you can do in your compiler - you can limitagain in whatever you use for your CD compiling. I findthat hitting it hard on the way into the A-to-Ds soundsdifferent than tuning it up in the compiler. It’s a differentthing. The latter is somewhat less objectionable to apoint and then it goes, “Ccaakkk.”

So when you say you do it to a particularsong, are there certain songs whereyou use one signal chain and otherswhere you would use a totallydifferent signal chain on the samerecord? Or are you using the samechain for the same color?

One of the big, big things about mastering is pulling therecord together as a whole. It’s a giant thing now. Theline is a very interesting one, because you don’t wanteverything sounding the same, but you don’t want itsounding too different. It seems that if I think I wantto use all the same things it doesn’t sound right. Itjust never works out that way.

Are you ever fighting yourself betweenyour two-bus stem processing frommixing and when you go back andare mastering the whole track? Doyou use the same chains?

It’s a different chain, and no, I’ve been very lucky withthat. I know you are not supposed to master your ownstuff for a bunch of reasons. But I have to say thatthe stuff of my own that I have mixed and masteredsounds better than anything else I’ve done. I am notsaying I am a great mastering engineer, nor am Isaying these other people are not – quite the contrary- we all know and appreciate many incrediblemastering engineers. But, it just worked.

What do you see as the differencebetween two-bus processing on a mixand mastering?

Modern records, for the most part, are so aggressive EQ-wise, and to a certain degree compression-wise, thatI wouldn’t want to commit to that much at one stageof the process. I generally don’t limit a mix when I amprinting it. I will compress it, but in a way that itmakes the music sound better - the same thing withEQs, and a part of it is twice sounds a lot better thanonce, just because of the way EQ curves work.Interestingly, you can do some two-bus processing onmixes that actually sounds really good, and you go,“Gee, it makes it sound great.” Then you master it,whether it’s you or somebody else, and then youlisten to the unmastered mixes and they sound likethere’s Kleenex over your head. I think everybodygoes through this, which is an interesting sort ofpsycho-sonic thing. There are certain tools - forexample multiband compressors where you can solothe different bands. But if you’re not careful, you canlose your reference point. If you solo a high frequencyband, say from 6 kHz on up, or mute the other bandsand that’s all you listen to for a second, just to kindof find something in there, when you open up thetrack again, everything sounds horribly dull. So yougotta watch doing things like that. On the otherhand, I like the fact that you can solo the differentbands and say, “Okay, this is where I need to beworking.” I find that I need to take ear breaks everyonce and a while, just for two minutes and then comeback and pick up again. So, it’s a matter of degree. Itry not to do anything too radical on the two-bus,either during mixing or mastering. Mastering isusually fine-tuning a second time.

46/Tape Op#60/Mr. Power/(Continued on page 48)

I have heard you mention before thatyou also de-ess more than once atdifferent points in the signal chain.

Or twice at different frequencies. Although, I amdefinitely from the school that says when you startputting two or three things on something, you hadbetter think about your approach. Because in way,the purist in me says, “Bob, start again. Youshouldn’t need all these things.” I’m also of the mindnow to be really objective. Does it sound better? If itsounds better man, you know, I just go withwhatever I had to slap on it. But often I find I needto de-ess at 2 kHz and then again at 8 kHz, ‘causethey are very different areas.

Are you using software de-essers?Yeah, I like the Waves DeEsser, not the Renaissance, butthe regular one. Also, you can use de-essers as tonalshaping tools if you have enough range. The Wavesone only goes down to 2 kHz. I find if there’s a lot ofthings that are kind of spiky and snarfy in the uppermid range, if I set it all the way down to 2 kHz and ifthe vocal is all nose and real pointed, it can do a lotfor smoothing it out. Another thing about de-essingwhich is interesting, and this comes from the analogdays, is that it can help acoustic guitars. If you havean acoustic guitar that is real spiky and stringy incertain areas, a de-esser can really help tuck thoseplaces in. You have to be careful because you canreally dull it out too.

Do you have any techniques, tricks, thingsthat you do, that you really don’t wantother people to know about?

No! That’s a quick answer. There are some guys thatcover up their mix shit, and it’s the silliest thing.There was a thread on Gearslutz where people weretalking about who owns the materials for the recordwhen you hand in your materials to the label. If youwork in Pro Tools fundamentally, if they load that intoa computer and open up Pro Tools, everything thatyou do is laid out for them right there. There were allthese threads about what you should do, and I triedto hold back for a while, and then I finally wrote in.From my point of view, that’s the most ridiculousthing I ever heard of, because music is a constantlymorphing thing. If you do a certain kind of record,maybe the settings you used for one song you can usefor the whole record, but people were saying, “Wellthey’re getting get my magic EQ, my kick drumsettings, my vocal settings.” Nobody can possiblycopy stuff you do because you approach it differently.There are zillions of little tangible and intangiblethings that make things come out in the way thatthey do. So yeah, I have really no secrets because Ireally think that it’s a matter of the whole picture, notany one thing we do.

Have you had any examples of somebodygoing back into your mix andtweaking?

That’s a good question. I don’t think so. I think when theyhaven’t liked the mixes they’ve actually redone them.

Do they come to you for that?No, that’s the whole idea. They didn’t like it. [laughter]Sometimes, if they don’t like something I’ll be asked

to redo it and change something a little. If it’s notreally off the wall or really damaging to the record, I’mlike, “Yeah that’s not going to take much, if that’simportant to you.” But if they say something that isreally damaging to the record I will tell them that,and tell them that they probably need to findsomebody else to do it. There have been some timeswhere I really think that people have used stuff thatI took to a certain point and worked from that pointon, but it doesn’t matter. It’s not important.

Tell me a little bit about teaching at NYU.It’s in its fourth year. I am teaching a class in advancedproduction at the Clive Davis Department of RecordedMusic, Tisch School of the Arts, at NYU. I amassuming the Clive endowment program gave it itsmandate, but it seems a bit separate, which is verygood. I know a bunch of people who are verysuccessful practitioners now who have come out ofthe Music Tech Program. The Department of RecordedMusic is not part of the Music Department either,which tends to be a little more classically oriented. Iwas pleased to find that it’s a very, very welldeveloped four-year curriculum that includes a coupleof semesters of legal issues for the record business,couple of semesters of music history and the historyof recorded music. There’s some people there, reggaeand hip-hop historians, who are absolutely amazing.The engineering end of it is very strong. I have mostlyjuniors and seniors, and Jim Anderson chairs thedepartment, who has probably recorded more goodjazz and classical records than anybody. Jim is reallya master and so is Nick Sansano, who runs theproduction end of it. Jason King is the ArtisticDirector. There are a bunch of people who have beenin the record business for a long time, includingattorney Lauren Davis. It doesn’t mean that you aregoing to come out of there and be successful at it, butI have to say that the people I’ve met who are juniorsand seniors really have a lot on the ball. To sort offind out where they were at the first couple ofsessions, I asked them to write me critiques of threevery important records, and I was very impressed withthe way that they listen to music, both in terms ofproduction technique, as well as in terms of who theartist is and what the intent of the record is. Theiranswers were very acute and very well developed.

Is there anything that you want totouch on that we haven’t gotten to?

The one thing that’s important to me when I talk topeople coming up as engineers is that it’s reallyimportant to understand that we are facilitators. Onceyou get into that mind-set, you become much moreeffective both for yourself as well as your clients.Remember that you are helping people along theirway, and if you really open yourself and listen and tryto get inside your clients’ heads, several things willhappen. Number one, they will trust you and willalways be back. Number two, you’ll never have toclose the door after a session and say, “God, I’m gladthat’s over!” We know in reality that it doesn’t alwayswork like that, but to me that is one of the jobs ofthe engineer. That’s why some people are very, verysuccessful at it, because they have a way with people

that makes the working relationship better, so itdoesn’t become a drag. The real issue is how you sussout your clients, the artists, and how you work yourknowledge as an engineer in a way that’s the mostcomplimentary to that. If you approach it like that, itnever, ever gets boring. It’s nice to have done projectsthat get a lot of notoriety, and people like the way Ido things, but the real deal is having amazinglypositive interactions with the artists who I’ve workedwith who are all wonderful people in their own right.

Are there any particular relationshipswith artists that you’ve especiallyenjoyed or that were standoutexperiences?

All of the artists I have worked with are really wonderfulpeople, and most of them very singular and uniqueartists. It’s been a nice karma for me. From A TribeCalled Quest, De La Soul to Me’shell to Erykah Badu,D’Angelo - it taught me that there are certain peoplethat stand out from the pack. I have found that thebest projects and the truly groundbreaking artists havebeen the ones who you can’t describe quickly, becausethey are doing something new and different. To dosomething in a way that hasn’t really been done before,and to have it be compelling, to get an emotionalreaction on our part – that’s wonderful. But they haveall been wonderful. I value my time with these peopleand value their friendship as well. I’m fortunate.Because I mix, and because I generally have as muchwork as I need doing that, I pick my productionprojects really carefully. I pick them if it seems like agood marriage, and a good marriage includes a certainintangible about the way people go about theirbusiness, plus things of musical interest to me where Ithink I can help them. There’s a lot of artists who havecome through who have a real unique way of doingthings that they don’t need me for and I don’t want tobe there if that is the case. I’ve walked on some reallyfamous records part way through, only because theyreally wanted to do it themselves and I value myrelationship with them in terms of honesty – realhonesty and trust – much too much to just sit aroundand collect money and show up once and a while. r

www.bobpower.comAllen Farmelo is a producer, mixer and engineer in NYC(www.farmelo.com). He’d like to thank Matthew Agogliafor his help with the transcription.

48/Tape Op#60/Mr. Power/(Fin.)

If the good men and women of NASAwho put the Hubble Telescope togetherwere ever to visit Sonicraft in Freehold,New Jersey, they just may come awayashamed of the shoddy work they’d done.That’s because there resides the SonicraftA2DX (analog-to-digital transfer) lab,built to astonishing specs and capable ofwhat creator Steve Puntolillo calls the“ultimate A/D analog-to-digital transfer.”Originally simply a sound maven withextra-sharp ears, Puntolillo became a manwho realized that the path to incredibledigital audio begins with incredibleanalog capabilities. Thus began the questfor an obsessive method to transfer thatsound from the realm of tape to the realmof bits and sample rates.

What was the pivotal event in starting youon the path of audio engineering?

I heard playback in a studio control room in, I’d guess itwas 1968. That was a totally mind-blowing experiencefor me because I’d never heard what music couldsound like straight off tape on a really goodmonitoring system before. I was like, “Oh my god, itcould sound like that?!?”

And what did it actually sound like?Like nothing I’d ever heard before. I’d only had basicrecord turntables until then, so to hear the sound ofa control room - I just couldn’t believe my ears. I washooked. My primary reason for being in recordingstudios up to that point was playing drums in them,but once I heard that playback, the music playbacksystem became very important to me. I started tryingto build my own speakers, upgrading what I had tolisten on, and what began to take over was the wholeprocess of recording, playback and listening to music.

It got to the point where it became as important tome to see how you could get a recording and capturethat content as it was to play the music itself. Thatwas really a big shift for me. I didn’t have a lot ofmoney at the time, so if I wanted to learn how a pieceof audio gear worked, I would buy it, hook it up,experiment with it and then I would sell it so I couldbuy the next piece. It was an empirical process to getfrom, “What is this stuff? How does it connect andinteract?” to the point where I was helping people towire their studios together. Later I was working witha company called Audiotechniques, which at the timewas NYC’s premier pro audio dealership, and I got tothe point where I was spec’ing out entire recordingstudios. Eventually I started a studio with somefriends. I moved on from that, but it was a goodengineering experience, with bands moving in andout constantly.

Didn’t you drop out of audioengineering entirely for a while?

I was a little bit burned out after I got out of the studio.The LinnDrum came out and then MTV and I said, “Idon’t really know if I want to do this.” You could seewhere MTV took music, and the LinnDrum was thestart, to me, of programmed music. I decided to dosomething else entirely, and I got out of pro audioand into computers, where I ramped up really, reallyquickly and started building graphics systems.Eventually, I did sales, marketing and PR for acomputer graphics software company. But, after somepretty decent success with all that, I did an executivebailout, because I wanted to go back into audio.While I was doing all this computing, great sound andlistening to music had become my hobby. In thisroom [now the Sonicraft studio] were a pair of Urei813 monitors, some couches and an outrageouslistening environment. It was my no-stress zone. Butthat also started an inquiry: With the advent of audioCDs, there was no excuse, in my mind, why the soundof a recording shouldn’t be the same as it was in thecontrol room. Before that, vinyl intrinsically changedthe sound of the recording - I don’t care who masteredit, vinyl sounds different from tape playback. They’rejust not the same, and I prefer tape playback. WithCDs, they’re transferring the masters right onto CD - Ishould hear just what the control room engineerheard. But a lot of times in my “control room”environment, CDs sounded dead, or cloudy or grainyand nasty. This started a search for me: I had to learnall about digital audio to find out why some CDssounded good and others didn’t.

That’s a deep question.Yeah! This was in 1995 or so, and a huge help was BobKatz’s Digital Domain website [www.digido.com]. Istarted to say, “I don’t like the way these CDs sound,so I want to fix them.” So I started capturing CDsback into the computer to remaster them so they’d bethe way I wanted them. The other thing I did was Iwent out and found an old Ampex tape machine so Icould get some of my old tapes and mixes onto CD.So I had this little mastering chain, a tape machineand a computer running digital audio, and some of myfriends that were still in the audio or media business

By David Weiss, photo by

Ste

ve P

unto

lillo a

nd h

is Sonicra

ft

Vir

gin

ia Kamenitzer

50/Tape Op#60/Mr. Puntolillo/(Continued on page 52)

started saying, “Can you do this or that?” Theystarted bringing me work, and before I know it I’marchiving all the tapes from the John Cage Trust,doing soundtracks and sound design for AT&T’smultimedia productions and CD mastering too. So Iwoke up one day and realized I’m in business. I let theday gig go nine years ago and decided to name thebusiness Sonicraft, feeling there was a need toemphasize that great sound is a craft.

Is that when the A2DX analog-to-digitaltransfer lab was founded?

That’s when the concept basically arose. At that time, Ihad the capability of transferring up to 1/2” 4-track,but I didn’t really need to be able to transfer any morethan two tracks as a mastering engineer. Then twothings happened. One of them was I looked at my 2-track machine and said, “This really needs to be akiller machine, because any serious masteringengineer that masters from analog tape has to have away of playing tape that is beyond average.”Otherwise, why would you go to them? Right? So itbecame sort of a quest of, “How good can I get this2-track machine to sound?” as I looked for ways toimprove the machine and the signal path. Then in themiddle of all this, I had a client, that wanted tomaster a surround DVD here. His artist was based inSanta Fe, and he had sent his 1” 8-track tape to myclient in NYC, who was going to supervise the mixsession. I wasn’t set up to transfer that format, andto make a long story short, we went through anincredible ordeal to get the transfer accomplished. Wefigured there would be great facilities to do that inNYC, but the fact of the matter was the best of thebest - and we’re talking about a huge studio with aworld-class reputation here - did a job that was totallyunacceptable. It turned out that there was really noplace in the area that was equipped to do such anessential task at a high level of quality, and maybeeven passable. When we got the transfers, wediscovered they hadn’t even bothered to decode thedbx noise reduction! After a night of pure insanitytracking down the right decoders in the middle of NewJersey, repairing them and running the transfersthrough them, we finally had eight tracks of decodedaudio ready to go. It was the middle of the night bythe time everyone left. I sat on the stairs and Iremember clear as day saying to myself, “Somebodyneeds to do this right.” Then the thought wentthrough my mind, “Why don’t you do it?” But itseemed like too huge a job. I realized that to do itright meant that the same type of madness I hadalready put into my 2-track machine had to go into amachine with up to 24 tracks. It’s hard enough to gettwo tracks to audiophile grade - to do it right with 24tracks is a tremendous undertaking.

So what changed your mind?I initially dismissed it as too expensive and time-consuming, but the idea sat there like an itch in mypsyche. And there were some breakthroughs that Ifound when I was working on this Ampex 440 2-trackI had. One of them was certain changes I could makein the signal path. Another one was that there was asignificant uptick in quality when I changed to Flux

Magnetics heads. Another one was that Bob Starr ofRTZ Audio had developed a replacement repro cardthat would work in the 440 that basically kept all ofthe great Class A discrete transistor single-endeddesign of the original Ampex line amps, but replacedall of the components with today’s devices which are,in point of fact, much better. He even put Lundahltransformers in these things. So between the changesto the signal path, the flux heads and the RTZ cards,I was getting playback from the 440 that was really,really exciting. It was pure and transparent, butpleasing - never harsh, but smooth, open and clear.And I began to think to myself, “You know, a (2” 24-track) Ampex MM1200 uses the same audio circuitryas a 440. So what would happen if I got one of thoseand made all these same improvements, and youmultiply all this wonderfulness times 24 tracks?” I hadan idea it was going to be good, but no idea howgood it was going to be.

Is there a reason you picked the AmpexMM1200?

There were four primary ones. First off, of course, wasthe sound quality: the MM1200’s playback amplifiersare discrete, Class A single-ended, and plugging in theRTZ amps made them truly audiophile quality. It alsouses a capstan and pinch roller design that gives it avery high degree of control over tape motion andspeed. Thirdly, the design itself is verystraightforward, which means it’s more open tomodifications, as well as boding well for futurereliability. Lastly, there’s some excellent resources outthere that continue to make advances in thecomponents that are available. So all those factorsmade the Ampex MM1200 the primary candidate forthe countless man-hours of testing and prototypingthat we would go on to subject our A2DX machine to.

The restoration sounds like an involvedprocess.

Well, really, it’s a never-ending process, but here’s whatwe did. First was fleshing out the platform itself,which began by purchasing three complete MM1200s.Each one of those was given an exhaustiveevaluation, part by part, until the best parts from allthree machines had been selected for the final build.After that, we took them outside of their hostmachines and fully reconditioned them, althoughsometimes we replaced them with newer versions. TheMM1200 that was in the best condition overall wasearmarked as the final platform, disassembled andcleaned inch by inch - that includes the wiringharnesses and all electrical contacts, plus cosmeticrestoration as well. One key step in the custom wiringof the chassis was the installation of switches to allowthe machine’s meters and transformers to be switchedin or out of the signal path at the output stage. Wecan also easily switch between a stock Ampex headand a Flux Magnetics ME head. As a result, our clientscan choose between a classic “Ampex” sound or onethat’s best described as more pure or transparent - asidentical as possible to what actually came off of theconsole during the recording session. Betweenupgrades to the signal path and reliability upgrades,we changed well over one thousand capacitors in

each of the two A2DX MM1200s. After we reassembledeach machine, we adjusted it, aligned it, tested it andevaluated its overall operations. I don’t use the term“audiophile” lightly, but all of the critical componentsare audiophile-grade. The playback amplifiers, forexample, have Lundahl input transformers,Roederstein metal film resistors and capacitors byWima and Panasonic, and lower distortion andadditional headroom to accommodate the extendedresponse of the Flux Magnetics ME heads.

It sounds like you spent extra time withthe heads…

We did. Every single part of the tape path was examinedand questioned to bring the audio performance of thismachine to the highest possible level, and the headswere obviously a huge part of that. Before we get tothat, our decision to upgrade the head assemblies withan ATR Services modification, which replaces threestatic guides in the tape path with precision rollingguides, is a good example of our approach. A mod likethis is extremely important to the sound quality. Whentape passes over a static surface, the friction betweenthe tape and the surface sets up a resonant vibrationof the tape - like a violin bow on a string - whichclouds up the sound. It’s called “scrape flutter”. Byreplacing the static guides with rollers, we were ableto significantly reduce scrape flutter, and that resultsin markedly better signal clarity, as well as reducingstress on tapes. At this point, we realized we reallywere on the verge of achieving extremely highaccuracy, transparency and purity in our transfers,which was the goal all along. There’s a genius I’dworked with in the past, John French of JRF MagneticSciences, that I called again to build the ultimate headassemblies. He built, customized or restored all of themany head assemblies we use here. For many of thesewe chose hand-built Flux Magnetics ME playbackheads. These heads are designed and hand-built byGreg Orton, and made an incredible difference versusstock heads. They provide a full extra bottom octaveand ultra-flat, low-frequency response when operatingat 30 ips, and no matter what playback speed we’retalking about, there’s benefits all over the audiospectrum. We got flattened and extended low and highfrequency response, tighter bottom end and overallgains in clarity. There’s a page on my website(www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html) that goesinto greater detail about all this, but the point is thatanywhere we could find that would result in animprovement in clarity - great or small - weimplemented. All those improvements add up in a bigway at the final output.

You’ve done this with more than 2” 24-track format though, right?

It’s easier to say what formats we can’t handle at theA2DX lab at this point. We had to cover as many basesas possible, because a lot of times, people come to uswith projects that were recorded on more than onekind of tape format. We didn’t want to have to turnpeople away because we could only transfer part oftheir project. The MM1200s have 2” 24-track, 2” 16-track, 1” 16-track and 1” 8-track capabilities. We havea completely restored “Bridgeport” Scully Model 284

52/Tape Op#60/Mr. Puntolillo/(Continued on page 54)

recorder that has three OEM head assemblies so we can handle 1” 8-track, 1” 4-track, and even 1” 12-track. An amazing Ampex MR-70, which may be the best-sounding vacuum tube analog tape recorder ever is on hand for 1/2” three-track.And, by the way, we’re not yet done with MR70s, and so on. There’s currently morethan fifteen different machines in operation, not counting backup machines andover 40 head assemblies. Then, there are all of the project studio type smallerformats, and the list goes on and on - again, it’s all on the website with lots ofpictures and detailed information. Basically, if it’s an open-reel analog tape we cantransfer it, and at the best possible quality.

What are the considerations after the audio leaves the tape machine?

The next thing is noise reduction. If it was used on the tape, what’s the use ofhandling somebody’s transfer if you can’t decode the noise reduction? When you tryto decode the tapes and the noise reduction system is not the same vintage as theone it was made on, does that matter or not? Noise reduction is an encode/decodeprocess, where dynamics - with respect to frequencies - are compressed during theencoding, then expanded again during decoding, which is when any errors you makein playback are going to be much more noticeable. That’s what makes the accuracyof the Sonicraft machines so important, because if your playback machine is lessthan optimal, it can cause artifacts like pumping and breathing, or even cause yourdecoder to mistrack, which is bad with a capital “B”. We listened to a ton ofdecoding systems, and came away equipped with 24-track racks of Dolby A, DolbySR, dbx Type I, and Telcom C4 - and with the A2DX machines in the path, thesedecoders do the best job they can possibly do.

I’m sure everyone wants to see your wiring scheme.You can’t go this far and then forget about the wires! All the runs here are short, discrete,with the heaviest gauge Mogami cable out there. The patch bays and patch cords arehand-soldered and 1/4” military-spec, and we power the analog equipment using anextremely high quality isolation transformer. The connections between the analog-to-digital converters and the capture workstations are optical, which keeps the electricalsystems of the analog gear isolated from the computer.

Your converters were supplied by another NYC-area madscientist...

Michal Jurewicz! The Mytek 8X96 converters are amazing - they’re the crucial last link inbringing the audio home into the workstations. I had Michal modify ours to havemastering-style stepped attenuators on each channel.

What’s the mindset you need to have to evaluate your systems tosuch a fine degree?

You’re looking at the signal path and what’s in it. What’s this audio touching? Basically it’sa process where you look at what the key points in the signal path are. Is the audiotraveling through a coupling capacitor or a transformer, for example? What effect is thathaving on the audio? Good effect? Bad effect? No effect? And no effect is perfectlyacceptable, although nothing has no effect, by the way - it just might be negligible. Alot of times you’ll find that there’s just one particular component that, for whateverreason, maybe they just couldn’t make it well enough back then, or maybe themanufacturer decided not to spend a lot of money and you say, “If the audio is goingto go through this thing or be affected by it, what happens if I put a better one in, orjust a different one?” Or, “What if I go around this thing?” So you look at each stageof where the audio is going and say, “Is this helping us or hurting us?” And you try it.The transformers are an excellent example of this. Transformers usually have a sonicsignature, and you can change the sound of the machine by changing the transformer.Or you can bypass them. The question then becomes, “Do you want what they do to thesignal or do you not?” In the case of the MM1200, I have a switchable bypass to theoutput transformer of that machine, which is one of the things that gives the MM1200that “MM1200 sound”. But by bypassing it, you get an almost audiophile type ofrendering, so it becomes a question - “Do you want a stamp on that transfer that saysMM1200, or do you want something that’s closer to what’s really on the tape?” Bydefault, I opt for what’s really on the tape, but if someone says, “I want it to sound likeit came off of the MM1200,” I just have to flip 24 switches, which is no big deal.

I’m interested in what you learned about what constitutes apositive, upgraded signal path as you did this?

Well, the definition of that is different things to different people, but I deemed somethingan improvement if, I after I did it, I could hear more than I could before. Here’s aconcrete example: Let’s suppose you have a recording of acoustic instruments. Youchange components on the tape transfer machine, and now you hear more of a sense54/Tape Op#60/Mr. Puntolillo/(Continued on page 56)

As Steve Puntolillo readily acknowledges, an entire crew oftalented people with extra-sharp ears helped to launch theA2DX Lab. Here they are in alphabetical order:Nejat Bakin - Audio Technologies - “Nejat is an audio design guru with a line of world-class,custom built tube gear. Since a machine’s power supply is the foundation of how it sounds, tomake sure it was done right, I asked Nejat to do all of the restoration on the power suppliesand filtering in the A2DX MM1200s.” www.audiotechnologies.comCarl Farruggia - Crimson Pro Audio - “Carl is an ace at fixing equipment and worked his magicon several of the lab’s restorations. He’s not afraid to tackle anything. I learned a lot just fromwatching him.” www.crimsonproaudio.comJohn K. Chester - “Try to picture an absolutely brilliant person, seasoned by decades ofpractical audio design and repair experience and the kind of ear that can take over where thebest test equipment leaves off.”John French - JRF Magnetics - “Although John is primarily known for his outstanding abilityto assemble, modify, build and recondition heads and head assemblies, his contributions go farbeyond tape recorder heads. We could never have built this place without his experience,support, insight and generous outpouring of knowledge.” www.jrfmagnetics.comPhilip Jost - Audio Technologies - “Phil is great guy with a passion for clean power and whatthat can do. Starting where the power enters the building, he went through this place installingisolation transformers, line filters and upgrades to the AC wiring and connectors to make surethe power is clean. Sometimes he kept right on going all the way into a machine’s power supplyand beyond.” www.audiotechnologies.comMichal Jurewicz - Mytek Digital - “Michal designed and built our 24 tracks of A2D conversion.He also made modifications to give us mastering grade stepped gain and attenuation on eachchannel. I’ve learned a lot about the ins and outs of A2D and D2A conversion from this kindand brilliant man.” www.mytekdigital.comBob Katz - Digital Domain - “Bob has been incredibly generous with his vast knowledge ofthe practical considerations of ultra high-end analog and digital reproduction.”www.digido.comGeorge LaForgia - Formerly of Ampex Tech Support and Quantegy - “Besides being acrackerjack troubleshooter for both transports and electronics, he’s probably baked more tapesthan anyone else in the world. George has been a teacher, tech mentor and repair wizard.” Bob Ligotino - Sonicraft A2DX Lab - “Literally thousands of squeaky clean connections, newcapacitors and impeccable soldering points later, here we are. If not for Bob, we’d still belooking at a pile of parts.” www.sonicraft.com/a2dxGreg Orton - Flux Magnetics - “Greg has designed and hand crafted many of the incredibleheads used in the lab. His work is impeccable. Besides that, he has gone the extra mile,providing expert consultation on modifications and upgrades to erase, record and reprocircuitry.” www.fluxmagnetics.comPaul Prestopino - Record Plant Remote - “‘Presto’ is a legend in the business and knows theMM1200 inside and out. He is best known for his technical work at the Record Plant and withRecord Plant Remote. Paul saved me a lot of mistakes by coming down when we were firstgetting started and making sure we were pointed in the right direction.”www.recordplantremote.comBill Schlegel - International Recording Corporation - “Bill is responsible for the trulywondrous rebuilding and updating of the MR70 transports used in the A2DX Lab.”www.internationalrecordingcorp.comMike Spitz and Andrew Bingham - ATR Services Inc. - “Mike and Andrew are the wizards whoimproved and rebuilt our Ampex ATR 102. Also, Mike was the first person I know of to ‘rollerize’the MM1200 tape path, with the many benefits that provides.” www.atrservice.comBob Starr - RTZ Professional Audio - “Besides providing expert advice on component selectionfor restoration work, Bob designed and hand-built the wonderful RTZ discrete Class A recordand playback amplifiers used at the Sonicraft A2DX Lab.” www.rtzaudio.comOther mentors and contributors have been: David Blake - Fox Recording Studio, Mike Bogen- Dale Pro Audio, Cary Cornett - Cornett Technical Services, Jeff Gilman - MDA Precision MotorWorks, Dana Hathaway - Access Audio Services, Richard Hess - Vignettes Media, Joel Katz -Broadway Sound, John Klett - Tech Mecca, Inc., Bill Lund - formerly 3M, Dale Manquen, -formerly Ampex & 3M, Michael MacDonald - AlgoRhythms, NYC, Jay McKnight - formerly Ampex,now Magnetic Reference Laboratory, Larry Miller - formerly Ampex, David Ollard, Andrew Roberts- Purple Audio Inc and a host of incredible people from Howard Sanner’s Ampex List(http://www.recordist.com), who generously shared their knowledge and sometimes dug upimpossible to find parts. I wish I could list them all. -SP

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/55

of the room that it was done in. There’s clearly moreinformation than there was before. Every time I tooka step closer to being live in the space that it wasrecorded, I chose that. So the before-and-aftercomparisons of these machines is that someone tooka blanket off of the speakers. If you prefer theblanket-over-the-speakers sound, you may disagreewith some of the decisions I made, and some peoplemight. If you later want to do things to the sound tomake it less clear, go ahead. You can always do that,but my goal is, “How close to the clarity of what’s onthe tape can I get to?” I have a 24-track tape here -the last tape I did before I exited the studio businessin 1984 - and I remember during the recording I wasdriving the engineer crazy because I wanted to hearharmonics and a tactile-ness in the instruments, andduring playback it was all sounding dead to me. Withthe mix I did back then, I felt I was fighting an uphillbattle to get the vibrancy and life out of the recordingthat I wanted. When I did the first transfer throughthe A2DX MM1200 and brought it up in my mixenvironment, everything I had fought and struggledto EQ and never really achieved was just sitting therewaiting for me. It was like a whole differentrecording. Now I was shocked in a whole new way. Ithought, “How many tapes are out there with thissound locked in there that no one’s ever heard?”

So who’s calling you for transfers?Where does the business come from?

We do have the actual owners of the tapes calling usdirectly. More often we’re being called by recordingstudio owner/managers who have a client withanalog tapes and they don’t have the particularformat of playback machine that the tapes are. Weprovide them with the files that they need to keepworking with the project so that they don’t have toturn that client and their business away. We’re alsogetting some record label work and some independentengineers and music producers.

What have you discovered in your questfor pristine analog sound - andtherefore pristine digital sound -that might be useful to other audioengineers who might want to get alittle more obsessed themselves?

The succinct answer is that good sound is notnecessarily about spending money, it’s aboutspending time. It’s all in the little details, just lookingat your tools and each step along the way, puttingaside all the hype and superstition of what is and isn’tsupposed to work and really listening for yourself,detail by detail. Because what happens is that oldcliché about the whole being greater than the sum ofits parts: As you go through your whole method -from the condition of the gear to the plugs in yourwall to the speaker position - and you work on thesethings, the quality goes up and up, and you reach apoint where it gets harder and harder to makeimprovements. You keep refining and refining - as youclear away the negatives you’re left with thepositives, and the result can be a slap in the facebetter than what you started out with. r

www.sonicraft.com/a2dx

56/Tape Op#60/Mr. Puntolillo/(Fin.)

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/57

FocalSolo6 Be active monitorsThe French company Focal has dominated the

audiophile speaker market since its inception in the 1970s.Today, Focal helps to form what I consider to be a vanguardof studio monitor designers who are quickly catching upwith the ever-increasing resolution, bandwidth, anddynamic range of modern audio by systematically reducingdistortion—and the resultant coloration—generated byamps and speakers. With the Solo6 Be model, Focal hasaimed to bring their cutting-edge technology to areasonable price-point ($2000 pair, street). The Solo6 is anoddball in the Focal line of professional studio monitors forappearing so traditional—a smallish rectangular cabinetwith a round tweeter mounted above a 6.5’’ woofer and abass port across the bottom of the cabinet. However, theSolo6 Be packs in most of Focal’s innovative designs, and it’sgood to know that they’ve cut no corners with this speakerto meet the price point.

The cabinet consists of 19 mm MDF panels withinternal braces with real red veneer on the sides. At 24 lbseach, they’re hefty for their size. On the back panel are theXLR input jack; IEC power cord socket; +4 dBu or -10 dBVoperating level switch; and recessed high and lowfrequency contour pots set at 5 kHz and 150 Hzrespectively, offering plus or minus 3 dB of adjustment forroom tuning. The tweeter is an inverted beryllium dome.At an astonishing 25 microns thick, it is capable ofreproducing frequencies up to 40 kHz at a velocity nearlythree times that of titanium. Focal designed this tweeterto avoid the comb-filtering that results from non-concentric tweeter and super-tweeter pairings. A generous100 Watt Class-AB amplifier powers the tweeter. Thewoofer is made with Focal’s W-Cone technology, a foamcore sandwiched between two thin woven-glass tissues.The W-Cone provides an unprecedented stiffness-to-massratio that, to my ears, results in far less coloration of thelow-end signal. If these woofers have a signature sound,it’s a distinctive lack of distortion. The 150 Watt BASHamp that powers the woofer is the only component notbuilt at the Focal factory and is licensed from Indigo.BASH amps have been designed to accommodate theheavy work of delivering the power needed at frequenciesas low as 20 Hz while staying cool and small enough towork in an enclosed speaker. (To learn more, visitwww.bashaudio.com.) So, while not looking all thattricked out at first, the Solo6 Be obviously packs in a lotof innovative, proprietary technology that sets it apartfrom other monitors in its class.

Like many independent producers and engineers, I workin both larger commercial studios and my own studio. Thesedays, I mostly work at my studio in Brooklyn, where I havebeen working on a pair of ADAM P11As, and at MavericksStudio in Manhattan. Last winter, Mavericks installed BarefootMM27s (see my review in Tape Op #58). The accuracy and reachof the MM27s seriously raised the bar for what I expect out ofa pair of speakers. Rumor had it that Focals could sound closeto the Barefoots, especially in the low-end detail and overalltransparency. I was very curious to learn whether the FocalSolo6 Be, a speaker considerably smaller and less expensive(about the same size and price as the P11As), could deliver thekind of sonic information I’d come to expect from a studiomonitor. If so, I might have found the perfect counterpart tothe Barefoots for my own studio.

One benchmark question I now use when determiningthe transparency of monitors is, “How different do differentrecords sound from one another?” The way I see it, if recordssound similar in color, tonality, frequency response, stereoimaging, and/or depth of field, then something isconsistently coloring—and homogenizing—the sound withits own sonic characteristics. According to the theory, thegreater the difference between the sound of two records, themore accurately the speaker is representing the recording.Listening to a bunch of records through the Focalsimmediately revealed one very important thing; the uniquesonic character of the low-end on different records was veryeasy to hear. Kick drums and bass guitars had as much detailin texture and color as the highs and mids, and not just thestring and fret sounds of the bass, or the attack of the kickdrum, but the contours of the low frequencies. One way todescribe it is that I could actually hear the lack of distortionin the low end, which meant that I could hear what wasreally on the record. Even at high volumes, the low end wasdistinctly undistorted. Another great surprise is that if youturn the Solo6s down to a whisper, the low-end impact staysintact and sounds full-range. This consistency at differentvolumes made it possible to monitor quietly for longerperiods of time, without worrying that the low end hadstrayed—good news for any eardrums. The “different recordstest” showed off the detail and transparency of the Solo6’smids and highs, too. The tweeters sound airy, presenting thespace and dimension around high-end sounds, but in no waydid they seem hyped. The detail and clarity of the berylliumtweeter is uncannily well matched to the W-Cone, making fora very balanced, unified listening experience up and downthe entire frequency spectrum. Different records certainlysounded quite different—for me an important factor inaffirming the transparency of the Solo6 Be.

Next, I checked out some of my recent mixes. I wasrelieved to hear that they sounded the way I had intendedthem to, though there were some new discoveries. Uponhearing one of my mixes for the Portland, Oregon band TimeFarmer, I noticed that the ride cymbal wasn’t carrying theexcitement of the song as much as I’d thought, and theacoustic guitar seemed to have more to say in the upperhighs; at the same time I could hear more subtle changes inthe ride’s overtones as the drummer changed his approach.There just seemed to be plenty of space in the stereo field forall the different high-end details going on. In the midrange,the snare on the same song had more of a lower-mid “poof”to it than I had thought, not quite cutting through theguitars. Rechecking it on other systems, this seemed to bethe way it was translating—another indication that there’slittle hype in the high-end with these speakers.

Next, I tried remixing a Time Farmer song, aiming toadd some dimension and groove to an up-tempo tune. Idecided to soak some electric guitars in long delays runningthough an automated sweeping band-pass filter that fed aspring reverb. The idea was to add depth by building analmost subliminally shifting sonic backdrop. On the Solo6’s,I was able to hear very subtle changes in both the band-pass filter’s frequency and in the reverb tails, and I wasreally digging that inverted beryllium dome tweeter duringthis mix. To cajole the groove a bit, I played withcompressors on the bass guitar, overheads, and a mult’edsnare track. Very subtle changes to the attack and releasesettings were easy to hear across the whole frequencyspectrum. For rock, I tend to mix with an API 2500 buscompressor strapped to the mix bus, and I love the differentsonic characteristics this unit can impart on a mix. Like the“different records test”, the differences between the variouscompressor settings on the API were blatant on the Solo6s.In fact, I fiddle less with the API while working on theFocals because the settings I want to use seem prettyobvious after trying just a few different combinations.

With the Focals on hand, I had a chance to track andmix a tune with producer Art Hays. Tracking to tape at15 IPS and monitoring on the Barefoots, we recorded adroning bass chord in D (fundamentals around 140 Hz and300 Hz) and an un-muffled double-skinned bass drum tunedto resonate an octave below (at roughly 70 Hz). The low-end chord produced by the bass and kick drum coming offof tape was a rich, warm woof on the Barefoots, but as youmight guess, this could be a sticky glob of low-endschmootz on less capable systems. This was a great test casefor the Solo6s; if I could hear into that low-end situationclearly, I could hopefully EQ out some of the inevitablemush, while maintaining the resonant frequencies thatmade up the chord. While the Solo6s obviously didn’treproduce the same sub content as the Barefoots, the clarityin the low end was stunningly similar, which put a big smileon my face. Next, I tracked a Telecaster over the top of ourrhythm section. The openness of the tweeters really spelledout where to place the mic in order to maintain the Tele’ssnap while steering clear of the harsher side of the tone.Again, the mix went swiftly and is translating nicely onlaptops, ear-buds, and other real-world playback systems.

I’ve done a lot more mixing, tracking and listening onthe Solo6s, and my impressions have remained consistentlypositive. (For more examples see the unabridged version ofthis review at www.farmelo.com.) Most significantly, theSolo6s have sped up and helped my mixing. When I canreally hear what’s up with the low-end tones, and the stereoplacements are accurate, and the reverb tails are obvious,and the top end is wide open, it’s just easier and more funto mix. Similarly, spotting an issue and finding a solution iseasier, faster and less worrisome. I’m thrilled with howchanges in mix-bus processing are rendered, especially tonalchanges from my trusted hardware units. Most importantly,music I’ve tracked and mixed on these speakers istranslating positively on all kinds of systems in the outsideworld, a clear indication that Focal designed a killer studiomonitor with the Solo6 Be. For the money, I don’t know ofanother speaker with this kind of low-end clarity and overalltransparency. I’m happily keeping them in my studio as thebest complement to the Barefoot MM27s I’ve yet to hear. Ifyou get a chance, definitely check them out. ($2190 pairMSRP; www.focalprofessional.com)

–Allen Farmelo www.farmelo.com.58/Tape Op#60/Gear Reviews

BraunerVMX tube micI have always been curious about the Brauner

microphones. I have seen the name for a while now, and the factthat Klaus Heyne got involved with this company, when anycompany would probably be glad to collaborate with such a manon a microphone, really piqued my interest. Brauner seems tomake microphones not to a price point so much as making amicrophone that is great and as fully realized a design as theycan at a price point. Maybe. I don’t know. What I do know is thatthe VMX is very, very nice. It’s a large-diaphragm condenser witha freely adjustable pickup pattern, Class-A tube amplification,and VOVOX conductors (Tape Op #59).

I happened to get the mic the day that Bernie Worrellof Parliament fame loaded into Studio G in Brooklyn to dosome stuff with me engineering and playing with him. Thiswas something I was freaking out about. I love everythingthat this guy has ever played on. He turned out to be anamazing person, which was icing on the cake. I wasrecording some drums, some organ, some bass, some guitar,and some vocals. We didn’t have a ton of time for all this,so I started out with the mics I rely on all the time:Neumann U 47s, Neumann M 49s, and a few more obscuremodern gems like the Sage Electronics Bova Ball. Drumswere mic’ed up, and I usually use one of the 47s for a centerambient microphone about 4 ft back from the kit, deadcenter, at chest height. I decided to replace that mic withthe VMX for this session, just to start out trying the thingon drum room, in a position I know well, in a room I knowwell, and where a U 47 normally sits on almost every sessionI do these days. First things first, I take the thing out of thebeautiful case, and everything looks amazing. Even the waythe thing sits in the box commands respect! Theshockmount is a thing of beauty… so I thought. Everythingis really well made, just like you would expect from Germanengineers… then I tried to put the mic up. Tried.

The shockmount is totally weird. I couldn’t figure outhow the frig to get the damn microphone into theshockmount! Awesome—makes you feel cool when one ofyour heroes is on the couch, and you are like wrestling foryour life out in the live room. I actually moved the stand towhere nobody could see me swearing and poking at theshockmount like an ape with a robot in the room. I finallyfigured it out; the two dots on the weird tension ringthingies at each end of the shock have to be lined up forthe mic to slide in. Clever? Annoying. It worked well oncethe part of my brain that enjoyed Rubik’s Cubes in seventhgrade kicked in. Then I realized that the lever arm on theshockmount was spring loaded, so no matter where I put it,I could then move it ten more times to try and get a goodgrip on it to reposition. It does hold the mic really, reallywell; I just didn’t bank on such a steep learning curve to puta mic on a stand. I was bumming on how overly clevereverything seemed to be… but I was still unprepared forthe pop screen, which I wanted to have ready in preparationfor tracking vocals immediately after the basics.

The pop screen is beautiful. It looks like a mid-centurymodern lampshade that could have been designed by HermanMiller and Gyro Gearloose in a first-ever cartoon-character,furniture-designer collaboration. This thing drove me mental.It looks awesome, but then I realized that I had to take thelittle thumbscrew thingies all the way out of the screen justto push the two leg things into the shockmount and thenthread the two little thumbscrew thingies back in through the

shockmount into the pop screen leg thingies. I instantlydropped one of the thumbscrew thingies and was swearingagain. I knew that I would lose at least one of the littlethumbscrew things if I had to use this mic over and over.

So then I patch all the preamps and finally start feelinglike I kind of know what I am doing again when I hear thesounds I am getting—all fun to listen to, and somethingthat appeals to the lizard brain that seems to have takenover in me. Then I push up the Brauner.

It really sounds good. Really. It was more balancedacross the entire spectrum than my U 47 and more “gleamy”and open. The transient response felt fast and light, like youmight expect from something with a little less massswinging around inside the basket than a U 47. (I don’t evenknow if this is true, but it feels that way.) As I reflect onthis microphone, and its possible audience and user, I can’thelp but think that an investment of this type—$6000 fora top drawer microphone—is a tough decision. This is whyso many people wind up with a bunch of classic Neumannmics in their locker and collection. You can count on aclassic Neumann to accrue value, even sitting on the shelf.The Brauner VMX is beautiful and sounds amazing, but willit hold its value? Will you be able to use this amazing toolfor recording, knowing that in a darker time, you could sellthis thing and get out of it what you put in? I personallywouldn’t freak out about that too much, but I can see whythe $1000–$2000 condenser market has gone cuckoo; itdoes not require a lifelong quest for quality, or a dedicationto having the best tools for your recordings. A $1500microphone is an upper-level hobby purchase. With thatsaid, the VMX may be one of your favorites on a day-to-daybasis in the studio. It sounds good on lots of things, andit’s very well made. Are you an artist? Are you trulypassionate about recording? If you are, this could be one ofyour favorite tools. I love recording. I love music. I lovegreat tools for recording, and I like this mic. If you want anemotionally engaging experience, and not an academictreatise on frequency response, you probably will like it too.

The VMX sounds like whatever you put in front of it, onlymore flattering. I liked it everywhere you would expect to likea tube-based LDC. The quality of the sound is really cool—like a smooth, flattering, 3D picture of the event in progress.In front of a very nice vocal, it really sounded great. It wasnot the mic for that vocal because I wanted the vocal to sitin a different way than the VMX was gonna give me. I wentwith an M 49 instead, because it wasn’t so gleamy in the topend. For acoustic guitar, however, the Brauner made the cuteven with a C 12, a U 47, an M 49, and a CMV 563 up onstands. I am pretty lazy, and sometimes I will record everyoverdub with whatever is on stands from the basics, especiallywhen it is me doing the playing, but I wanted to put this micthrough some paces. On the Leslie cabinet, I thought the VMXwas also a bit gleamy. I don’t like “toppy” mics, and Iwouldn’t call the Brauner toppy, but I would say it has asheen to it on top that can really give an acoustic guitar someshine in a dense mix, or could poke a male vocal out pastsome hefty guitars. When I tried it for a male vocal in a densemix, I felt it was a little too shimmery for that track—like toomuch breath—though not too much “ess”, which wasinteresting. This is a microphone of quality, and it’s a greatchoice as your one big bruiser of a LDC, especially if you hearthings in a gleamy way. This mic can put sparkly lip gloss ona gorilla, and what else can be said after that? ($6259 MSRP;www.braunermicrophones.de)

–Joel Hamilton, www.joelhamiltonrecording.com

PearlmanChurch, TM-1 & TM-2 tube micsThere are legends in microphone technology, and there

are legends in microphone technology. Everyone has surelyheard about the legendary U 47 microphone, but have youheard about the U 47 Church microphone? The legend goessomething like this. On a smoky movie set on an MGMsoundstage sometime in the mid-1950s, a director yells“Sound!” A mic boom is lowered, and then “Action!” is called.Clark Gable takes to the set and suddenly begins his dialogueinto… a stubby black U 47???

At the time, most people wouldn’t have known what thatmic was, but today we know it as the StanleyChurch–modified U 47. Stanley Church was the Chief SoundEngineer for MGM studios in the ever-classic 1950s period,and he must have had some gumption to think that he couldbuild a mic better than Neumann could, using some ofNeumann’s own parts! Because that is precisely what StanleyChurch attempted; he went ahead and ordered a stockpile ofU 47 capsules from Neumann (or more likely from Gothamwho was the US Neumann distributor) and proceeded to buildhis own microphone from them. These microphones weredesigned to use a bit higher power and be more detailed thana standard U 47, perhaps for getting more sound to the tapefrom a more distant mic placement on a movie set; or maybeChurch was just nuts.

History would prove Church’s vision valid though, astoday these original Church U 47 microphones are rare andfound only in the hands of the lucky few with a seriousmicrophone collection. This is because once Neumann gotwind of what Stanley Church was doing with their capsule,they proceeded to shut him down—so to speak—lettingChurch and MGM know in no uncertain terms that theyweren’t going to tolerate a Frankenstein version of theirmicrophone being built and distributed to movie studios inHollywood. In the end, it is rumored that of 200 capsulesChurch acquired, less than 20 actual Church mics werecompleted. Talk about rare!

In regards to technical specs, beyond the obviousNeumann capsule, Church used a 6072 tube with a Triadtransformer and then shoved the messy works into a stoutblack microphone body. As the years advanced andsoundstage microphone technology along with them, theChurch mics retired from movie studio use into the hands ofmost likely the very engineers who used them. Over time,these found their way into some recording studios where theywere as good as and sometimes even better than a standardU 47. Thus the legend began.

Dave Pearlman of Sherman Oaks, CA is a relativenewcomer to the microphone scene. Yet in the past few years,he has turned the boutique microphone industry on its side(or its ear if you would) by designing microphones thatcapture and emulate the best the U 47 had to offer, and at aprice point that can fit the budget of almost any studio, evena home or project studio. Dave began with the TM-1, whichuses a custom configuration of capsule, tube (originalGerman), and transformer to create which is in my opinion,the best damn large-diaphragm condenser under $2,000!Capturing the essence of the original vintage U 47s, thePearlman TM-1 is an amazing microphone, especially onvocals, for the price point of $1,750. To get anything betteror closer to a U 47 in an LDC, you’d have to spend at leasttwo to three times as much.

Gear Reviews/Tape Op#60/59

Always looking to innovate, Pearlman began researchingthe different variants of the U 47 last year and came uponthe legend of the Church microphone. Upon confirming itsexistence and legendary character, Dave used all his secretmicrophone powers to procure a schematic and parts list ofthe components used by Stanley Church to build these micswhile at MGM Studios. Thus the Pearlman Churchmicrophonewas born. This mic uses an actual, original Neumann K 47capsule, the same used in U 47s the world over, along witha 12AU7 tube (better sounding, Dave found, than the 6072)and an original old Triad tranny, just like Stanley Church’s.Interestingly, Dave Pearlman also has chosen a great lookingblack body for his whole series of microphones, so thePearlman Church mic is even more true to its original form.

So how does the Pearlman Church mic sound? In aword—amazing! For just a little bit more than the TM-1, theChurch mic, at $2500, is the next step up in terms of soundquality and polish. Where this mic really shines is in its topend. The top end is rich and distinct, capturing everyessence of the “magic” in a vocal but without beingsibilant, even on sibilant singers!

A lot of this likely has to do with the Neumann capsuleas well, proof once again that they don’t build things likethey used to. Therefore, of course there are also only so manyPearlman Church mics that can be built as there are only somany original Neumann capsules to be found, so this mic isgoing to be a limited production throughout the years. Notquite as limited as say Gunter Wagner’s U 47 clone, which hasa two year waiting list—but let’s just say there are only goingto be so many to go around.

So back to the sound. I went ahead and tracked a malevocal within the context of a song with a variety of LDC tubemics, including a Soundelux U95S, Manley ReferenceCardioid, Pearlman TM-1, and Pearlman Church mic at 5amStudios in downtown Austin, TX. I would have liked to havehad the original Church mic handy as well, but they are sorare it was impossible. The results of sonic tests confirmedwhat Dave had already told me. This mic is special.

Without a doubt, the Pearlman Churchmic track was theone that had the most finished and polished “album” sound,if you will, with a top end that sounded perfect. The ManleyReference is also a great mic with a top end that will showyou every highlight—and every flaw—in the vocal. On thisparticular track, the Manley mic sounded far too sibilant andharsh. Therein lies the difference between a 100% accurateand open microphone capturing the good and the bad, andone that is simply perfect for voice and vocals. The Churchmic is precisely that—a mic that can take a vocal and let itsit in the mix, with minimal fine tuning and most of the timealleviating many potential problems in the top end withharshness and sibilance.

I also got to see the Pearlman Churchmic put to the teston drums within a Glyn Johns mic setup during a session at5am Studios. You can search Google to see this setup if youare not familiar with it—basically a four-mic configurationthat, if you have the right player and room, can get you abetter drum sound than with twenty mics on the kit. We usedthe Churchmic for the floor tom / side mic in this setup, andit delivered a wallop! Great imaging on all the drums, andeven using a different condenser (an older U 87) for theoverhead mic in this setup, the Church mic blended inperfectly and in all honesty helped to deliver one of the bestsounding drum sound setups we’ve heard at the studio,especially with only four mics!

60/Tape Op#60/Gear Reviews/(continues on page 62)

On acoustic guitar, the Pearlman Churchmic also soundedexcellent, delivering the warm full sound of a Collings bodyalong with all the shimmer and detail in the high end. ThePearlman Churchmic was even put to task on a roaring electricguitar cabinet, and in combination with a Royer, it helped toagain put that great high end to work, adding interestinghigh-end detail that can be lost on the Royer.

Is the Pearlman Church microphone a perfectmicrophone? From a technical perspective, no. One aspect ofthe Church mic I did find awry is that it wasn’t completelybalanced in the bottom end vs. top end without adding somelow-end EQ—say a bump around 200 Hz or so. Interestingly,after adding some low-end EQ on the bottom, the detail therewas marvelous too. It’s like it was there all the time anyway,just not in perfect balance in volume and intensity with thatpristine top end. So in some situations where you’d be lookingto mic a source that required even balance throughout thefrequency spectrum, you’ll definitely be reaching for some EQ.I found this true even on some vocals, but again, as soon itgot a little bump on the bottom end, man, there it was, whata great sounding microphone!

The Pearlman Church microphone can also be tuned totaste by trying some different tubes in the socket containedwithin. While I didn’t have a chance to try this, Dave informedme that I could also try a 6072, 12AY7, or 12AX7 to tune themic to taste. Since Dave is a boutique builder, he is personallyaccessible to help you fine tune your mic to yourspecifications. Not many mic builders today will take the timeto do so. The original Church mics were special and so is thePearlman Church mic. For about half the price of any otherU 47–style mic, it gets so close to that classic magical sound,especially on vocals, that I think Dave will have more ordersthan he can fill in the near future for his new/old Churchmic.

Dave also sent along his newest original creation—theTM-2 microphone. Priced at only $950, this mic resides in asmaller body than the Church mic or TM-1 and uses a 6AK5glass pentode tube and a smaller 32 mm capsule. The shapeof the basket is also changed, and this mic can fit into someplaces a larger condenser wouldn’t, especially on a drum kit. Ithink Dave has a winner with this mic as well. While it isn’t asfull and rich as his flagship TM-1, or with the same magicaltop end as the Church mic, it does sound great on just abouteverything I tried it on. In front of an acoustic guitar, it gaveour resident Schoeps a run for the money, and even on vocalsit was very good at capturing enough detail to classify it as apotential vocal session mic choice.

In summary, this new TM-2 in my opinion is designed tobe a great all-around microphone for those on a budget. If Iwas limited in my mic choice, whether for budget reasons orin the studio or on a location gig, I would want to have atleast one Pearlman TM-2 around as I could likely place it frontof any source and get a good sounding track out of it. Thismic will be a full-production microphone and not a limitedspecial as is the Church mic. Having used Dave Pearlman’smicrophone products in my studio for more than year, I canattest to their quality, durability, and again to Dave’s customerservice. I’d encourage anyone shopping for condensers whodoesn’t have $5K–$10K to spend on a vintage piece to checkout Pearlman microphones for capturing that classic essenceat incredible price points. (TM-1 $950 direct, TM-2 w/American tube $1600, TM-2 w/ German tube $1750, Church$2500; www.pearlmanmicrophones.com)

–Mark Warren, www.5amStudios.com

62/Tape Op#60/Gear Reviews/(continues on page 64)

Generator LLCKikBrikBass drums are a strange thing. They are big and can

be unruly, or worse yet, tiny-sounding if packed with abunch of crap. They have a lot of interior space that isreflective and rounded. And they play a really important partof most music made involving a drum set. Enter the KikBrik,a truly “build a better mouse trap” invention.

The KikBrik is a physical damper for the kick drum madefrom recycled materials and shaped roughly like a large brickthat’s had its edges beveled and its ends slanted. Its cross-section is about 6’’ x 6’’ square, and it comes in three standardlengths for drums that are 14’’, 16’’, and 18’’ deep. Customlengths can also be ordered. I had a long talk with JohnCalder, the inventor of the KikBrik; not only is he a life-longdrummer and studio owner, but he’s also designed studiosand electronics. It’s clear that the KikBrik is a result of a lotof creative thinking as well as real acoustical principles. Themultifaceted bevels on each end (which are shapeddifferently) allow you to place the KikBrik inside the drum andvary the location and pressure of the contact points on theheads. You can position the KikBrik so it’s touching one heador the other; both heads; or touching neither (which stillprovides acoustic damping inside the shell).

I got to use the KikBrik in a number of situations witha few different drums. It spent the most time in my 22’’Yamaha Maple Custom Absolute. The day it arrived, I put itinside and just played for a while, changing positions everyfew minutes. Some changes, like moving the contact pointhigher or lower, were more subtle, while the angled positionsaffecting one head were more obvious. What’s nice is thatit’s simple to make changes—just reach in and move theKikBrik. The first recording session it saw was for a coverband (All You Can Eat) whose bass drum had a head with amuffling ring and a lot of pillows inside. It was dead andlifeless. We took out the pillows and put in the KikBrik, andthe drum really opened up. I believe it ended up at an angletouching the resonant head just a bit. The band was a trio,so a little bloom in the bass drum was a good thing. I did alive in-room-rehearsal recording with one of my bands (TheRedgraves) without a lot of prep. The KikBrik was in the 22”and touching both heads. The recording sounds great—plenty of thud with very sculpt-able attack. A reallyinteresting instrumental bass and drums duo (Benelli) wasin, and with them came a 16’’ x 26” Gretsch Catalina bassdrum. We put the KikBrik in and tuned the drum, and it’s oneof the coolest bass drum tones I’ve ever recorded. Due to itssize, the drum could have easily taken over the mix, and theattack was at a much lower frequency than most of what wehear in the rock arena. The KikBrik kept the drum fromgetting away from me and made sure that the attack didn’tget lost. The resultant sound took well to EQ andcompression and was never a fight like the recordings of bigdrums tend to be.

I’m playing in two bands right now: one on drums(Wiplot), the other on bass (The Redgraves). I’ve been ableto use the KikBrik from both sides of the glass and both sidesof the drum. It’s a super-useful, easy to use, and well-madeproduct. I think it’s a bargain, and I know I’ll be using minefor many years to come. ($49 for standard size, $58 forcustom; www.kikbrik.com)

–Tony SanFilippo <record@oxidelounge.com>

MCASP1 large-diaphragm condenser micYou knew it. You knew that with all the

microphones on the market, there had to be at leastone cheapo Chinese mic that stands head andshoulders above the rest. You were right! Interestingly,this mic is so overlooked that it is slated to bediscontinued, although you can still find them for sale.The mic is called an MCA SP1, and it lists for $60, butyou can find it for $40 if you shop around. Strange buttrue, the price is probably the biggest reason that theSP1 has been so completely overlooked. People think,“Hey, I’m not going to buy that cheap junk. I’m goingto cough up the extra $20 and get a good mic.” Well,the parent company of MCA is Marshall Electronics(who also have the MXL line of mics), so it does havea reasonable pedigree, and it comes with a three-yearguarantee. The mic ships with a mic clip in a barebones package—no box, shock mount, or even a bag.In fact, it comes in a blister pack, like batteries or anew pair of scissors.

The SP1 is a large-diaphragm, cardioid, FETcondenser mic that requires phantom power. Yes, itlooks like all the other Chinese mics of this description,but that is where the similarities end. It has a soundthat is in a class by itself. Why? Because in thisparticular mic, they happened to join an exceptionalcapsule with an exceptional circuit. The capsulefeatures a 20 mm diaphragm; that’s not really “large”by my definition. It’s closer to medium, in my opinion.The diaphragm sits inside a larger ring of thin metal,which makes it appear to be the size of a typical largediaphragm capsule. The ring probably has some soniceffect, at least on the polar pattern (which is quitetight) and the low-frequency response. The smaller sizeof the diaphragm is probably the reason that themidrange of this microphone is so incredibly smooth(think ribbon), yet it has the high and low–endextension of a condenser. The electronics are modeledon the highly respected Schoeps “long tailed pair”; aproven design that is the essence of simplicity andfunctionality (steal from the best…). If you’re nervousabout quality, you can buy one and have it customizedb y J i m W i l l i a m s o f A u d i o U p g r a d e s(www.audioupgrades.com). For $125, he replaces thecritical circuit components with select, boutique partsand modifies the DC-DC converter to increase thepolarizing voltage. These changes yield higher output,extended low-frequency response, and greater overallreliability. But try this mic before you go the extra mile.It sounds so good that you might decide you’d ratherbuy three more than pay to have one hot-rodded. Butbeware; don’t buy an SP2! You won’t be happy. ($69.95MSRP; www.mcamics.com)

–Terry Setter <tas@evergreen.edu>

Gear Geeking w/ Andy…We have a few new contributors for this issue. Terry

Setter (who contributed the MCA SP1 review) is not only onthe faculty of Evergreen State College in Olympia,Washington, but he also designed the TS-1 and TS-2 tubecondenser mics for Chameleon Labs. Coincidentally, MarkRubel, who reviewed the Setter-designed TS-1 for this issue(his second review for Tape Op) is also a faculty member; heteaches at Millikin University’s School of Music in Decatur,Illinois and is the owner and Chief Engineer of Pogo Studio.Barry Hufker (Telefunken USA RM-5C) is an associateprofessor of Audio Production at Webster University in St.Louis, Missouri; and he heads up Hufker Recording. As faras I know, Mark Warren (Pearlman Church) isn’t a professor,but he owns a well-equipped studio in an enviablelocation—the South Congress Arts District—in theuniversity town of Austin, TX. And speaking of Mark and hisinformative Pearlman Church review, I got a call from JB,who was “super stoked” after he read Mark’s review. It turnsout that JB has an original and extremely-rare Church mic.He acquired it without knowing its history, and it was onlythrough reading Mark’s well-researched article that JBrealized what he’d been using (and loving) on just aboutevery session since he got the mic. ••• I recently receivedan email from contributing writer Thom Monahan, who justgot back from a recording session in Argentina with JuanaMolina and Vetiver (on JB’s FW-1814 and PT M-Powered asreviewed in Tape Op # 49). With Thom’s penchant forrecording music in interesting places, his cleanup tool ofchoice is the Wave Arts Master Restoration Suite. He hadthis to say about MR Hum: “Just magic. The kind of scarystuff that you thought all audio gear was like when you werea kid. While recording on the fly, in many differingenvironments project by project, its ability to clean up awide spectrum of common electrical noise is just invaluableon a day-to-day basis. And it seems to suffer little of thefrustrating comb-filter artifacts that plague other methodsand products. An absolutely essential plug-in, MR Humseems to leave the track nearly untouched. Grand slamhome run.” I recently recorded an incredible jazz trio withmaster improviser Joe Morris (joe-morris.com) on uprightbass. To make sure we captured all the subtleties of theperformance, we mic’ed up Joe’s bass in the control roomwhile drummer Luther “Trip” Gray (Tsunami, Ida, GloryTellers) and saxophonist Jim Hobbs (Fully CelebratedOrchestra) played in the live room. Unfortunately, myIsoBox’s fan noise was just barely audible during the quietestpassages. I remembered Thom’s email and fired up MRNoise—without reading the manual. Five minutes and 6 dBof noise reduction later, the bass sounded fantastic and thenoise was no longer an issue. Our very own Garrett Hainesis in the process of reviewing the whole suite. Also slatedfor a future issue is the continuation of the Wave Arts PowerSuite 5 review. I can’t say enough about how efficient andeasy-to-use (and fun too!) the plug-ins from Wave Arts are.••• The most exciting addition to my studio rack in the pastcouple months is a Roland SRV-2000 reverb. I purchased itnew back in the mid-’80s (for something like $600) and gaveit to my brother for his home studio. It’s now back in myhands. I love its band-limited sound and the gritty-but-warm textures it can add to everything from snare drum tovocal. It sounds way better than the venerable YamahaSPX90 (which I never really liked). Plus, any gear with secret,hidden modes (do a web search) has to be super cool!!! –AH

www.tapeop.comfree subscriptions online!

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/63

BeyerdynamicM 160 & M 130 ribbon micsDoes the Beyer M 160 even need a review? Surely

everyone knows by now that this is the mic Andy Johnsused to record John Bonham’s drums on “When The LeveeBreaks”. Does anything else need be said? I rather doubt, itbut I will prattle on for a bit anyway.

It’s a ribbon mic, but unlike most ribbons, which arefigure-8, the M 160 has a hypercardioid pattern. I boughtone about two years ago, and it wasn’t long before it wasseeing a lot of use on most everything you can think of. Ifirst tried it as an overhead, and while loads of people seemto love it in that application, for me the frequency responsecombined with the relatively narrow pickup pattern resultedin a sound that was cool but just too “colored”. (Yeah Iknow, that word is about as abused and meaningless asboth “warm” and “punchy”. Shoot me.) However, as a frontof kit mic it has worked wonders. I put it up about snareheight a foot in front of the kit and bam—perfect. Addssome nice space to the snare and some high-end smack tothe kick—two things I always seem to want more of as themix starts to get busy. So I like it a lot there, and I’ve alsohad nice results with it on the side of the snare and on therack tom. But guitar amps are where I really like it...

Shortly after getting the M 160 I got on a real multi-mic’ing kick for guitars. I felt like experimenting and wouldoften throw up three or four mics—a couple up close, onea ways back, one really far away, maybe the bullet mic upclose—whatever. I tried all sorts of stupid stuff. EventuallyI got around to mixing all these songs. And a funny thingkept happening. I’d go through the guitar tracks, tryvarious combinations and balances, different panningschemes, etc, and almost every time, I ended up going withjust the M 160, turned up loud. It just sounds right. My faveguitar mic before I got the Beyer was a Sennheiser MD 409,and I would often pair the two of them up close (well, afoot away or so) on an amp. Comparing the two wasinteresting. The main difference to me was really one oftexture; the Beyer was just so much smoother in themidrange. I just found that, even with some prettyheroically distorted and nasty guitar sounds, the M 160remained entirely pleasant to listen to; it never seemed tobe the least bit peaky or jagged. Anyway, it wasn’t longbefore I abandoned the whole multi-mic scheme, andbasically the M 160 became the only mic I used on a guitaramp for the better part of a year.

I liked it on a bunch of other things as well: viola,violin, upright bass, tambourine, and other percussivethings. I think it made the cut on some bass amps andvocals as well. It’s hard not to like this mic. I don’t haveanything bad to say. If you’re one of those who defaultsto an SM57 on guitar amps, you reeeeeally ought to trythe M 160 out and see if you don’t find it a whole lotnicer. You can find it for dramatically less than MSRPwithout much trouble.

–Scott Craggs <scott@rohdelikat.com>Yeah, what Scott said! I love the M 160. The first time

I used one was several years ago at John Vanderslice’s TinyTelephone studio in San Francisco. I think it was houseengineer Aaron Prellwitz who suggested that I give it a goon the horns. My first thought was, “Am I going to blow outthe ribbon by putting it in front of the trumpet?” Heassured me it’d be no problem. It worked out great, and the

track sounded supersmooth and sat perfectly in the mix; it hadjust the right kind of midrange presence to stay out of the wayof the vocal. I also tried an M 160 pair on cello and violin asmedium-distance mics (in conjunction with some close mics),and the sound was perfectly dreamy—neither scratchy norsqueaky, but not too dark either. At one point, while trackinga French horn with an M 160, the player’s boyfriend, who wasin the live room giving encouragement, put his mouth right upto the mic and pretty much blew up the whole signal chain bypopping into it—not a funny joke at all. I told Aaron about itwhen we were packing up and asked him to tell John to sendme a bill for the mic if it proved later to be damaged, but Inever got a bill. I later shared this story with a representativefrom Beyerdynamic, who then pulled out a sheet of paper andproceeded to fold it. That’s when I learned that each of theM 160’s two ribbons has multiple folds across two axes thatprevent it from stretching or collapsing like standard ribbonswith accordion-like corrugations will do under air pressure.Neat! Well, long story short, I recently purchased an M 160 formyself, and I’ve fallen in love with it all over again. Comparedto my other ribbon mics (Royer R-121, SF-12; SE ElectronicsR-1), the M 160 has less high-end and exhibits a healthy (orportly, depending on how you hear it) low and lower-midrangeboost at close proximity, but that’s part of what makes itspecial. The hypercardioid M 160 is really unique in its abilityto pick up lots of midrange smoothly while picking up minimalroom sound, even when it’s positioned more than a few inchesfrom the source. The mic’s response dips slightly within themost crowded bit of the spectrum between 300 to 800 Hz butrises with upper-mid/low-treble presence between 2 to 6 kHz,which for me, makes for easier mixing. Because of these traits,I wouldn’t recommend the M 160 as a do-everything mic or asa primary vocal mic; instead, I’d call it the perfect complementto the do-everything and vocal mics that you already own. –AH

If you read my take on the M 160 in the first third of thisreview, you know that I Am A Fan. So when Andy asked if Iwanted to review the M 130, I was at his studio’s door beforehe finished the question. Pulled it out of the box to have alook, and oh, what a cute little mic. Yeah, I sound like Mom,but it really is kind of adorable looking.

Cosmetics aside, there’s a lot of other things to likeabout this mic. First thing I did was put up the hypercardioidM 160 and the figure-8 M 130 in M/S configuration in frontof the drum kit. Worked a treat. I’d already come to lean onthe M 160 there as my new secret weapon for drums, and theaddition of the M 130 lent a whole new dimension to thesound. Then I tried it on some guitars. Zowie—sounds great.It has the same sort of smoothness the M 160 does, but withits own unique character. It has this cool “hi-fi” thing goingon. It doesn’t sound “scooped”, but the lower mids aredefinitely “relaxed”, shall we say. A look at the frequency-response chart confirmed what I was hearing; the responseseems to shelve a bit at 500 Hz, and then again around250 Hz, coming up again with a bump around 80 Hz. Thehigh end starts rolling off around 10 kHz.

In practice, this amounts to a really nice presence boost.Actually, I’m listening to the new Shellac record as I type this,and you know how Bob Weston’s bass sounds? The M 130 hassome of that about it. That’s really the best way I can describeit. Again, it doesn’t sound scooped in an artificial way, it’s justvery clear and lively sounding. I may well come to like it evenmore than the M 160 on guitars, and that’s saying something.

I certainly liked the M 130 better than the M 160 as anoverhead, the understated mids were more flattering to my

64/Tape Op#60/Gear Reviews/(continues on page 66)

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/65

inept meanderings around the kit. Neither mic was exactlywhat I was looking for from an overhead, but they’re bothdefinitely a sound, and I can imagine a lot of folks beingpsyched with either of them. I also put the M 130 up againsta Shure SM7 on bass cab, and I really liked the way theM 130 captured more of a sense of space. Listening to theSM7, I thought, “That sounds like bass.” With the M 130,“That sounds like a bass amp in a room.” I also tried it as adistant room mic, maybe 15–20 ft from my drums, and I wassurprised how much I liked it. Usually when I have mics thatfar back, I always hate them on playback, as the somewhatwonky sound of my live room becomes way too apparent,but the M 130 was oddly pleasant. Nice.

I haven’t had a chance to check it out on anything elseyet, unless you count cowbell (sounded great!), but I havea feeling it’s going to see a lot of use. Its MSRP is almost thesame as the M 160’s, so I imagine the street price is similarlyless. Check these mics out. I can’t imagine anyone beingdisappointed by either of them. (M 160 $759 MSRP; M 130$749; www.beyerdynamic.com)

–Scott Craggs <scott@rohdelikat.com>

MalekkoB:Assmaster distortion pedalDistortion aficionados, take note—Malekko has served

up the indie-stompbox scene with a doozie. The B:Assmasteris a contemporary tribute to the exquisitely rare MaestroBass Brassmaster, a ‘70s-era pedal that was intended toimpart trumpet-like tones onto electric guitar or bass. Intruth, the original Maestro was a unique device capable ofan absurd range of tonal variation, with the then-unheard-of feature of allowing the user to dial-in any amount of cleansignal. These are so sought after, vintage units have recentlybeen changing hands for well over a thousand bucks.

Seeing the demand for a modern version, the Malekkofolks put on their thinking caps and came up with theB:Assmaster. It delivers the goods in spades. With just threeknobs and two switches (besides the true-bypass footswitch),this box really does give up a huge palette of sounds just likeits ancestor. The Ass Volume knob and Ass switch (for real)control the level and tone of distortion. The Bass Volume knobadjusts the level of dry signal to be mixed in. I found thesound of the dry signal was not quite the same as thebypassed signal; it’s a bit more compressed and harmonicallyrich, but in a great way. This feature helps make theB:Assmaster quite possibly the ultimate bass distortiondevice. The Harm switch and Sensitivity knob adjust theharmonic shape and depth of distortion. Hard to explain, butthose two controls seem to have the biggest range of tone.The Sensitivity knob, in particular, sometimes acts like anexpander/gate and other times seems like a high-pass filter.The cool thing is that almost all of the sounds that can beconjured up are musically meaningful; it’s hard to find asetting that yields chaotic, uncontrolled, atonal sounds.

Bonus points for a very hip orange, purple, and browndesign, with a secret hidden LED for when the unit isactivated! Extra bonus points—the people at Malekko havea toothy sense of humor. I don’t want to ruin the surprisefor anyone, but let’s just say that when I unscrewed thebottom panel to install a 9 V battery, I was greeted with abitingly funny revelation.

($255 direct; www.malekkoheavyindustry.com)–Pete Weiss, www.weissy.com

Samson AudioCL2 Pencil Condenser MicVR88 Velocity Ribbon MicHere’s a couple of new and very affordable mics from

Samson. First up, the CL2s are sold as a matched pair ofsmall-diaphragm pencil-style condensers with high-passfilters and 10 dB pads. The mics come very handsomelypackaged in a tough little aluminum case that holds thetwo mics, plus just about every mic accessory you’d everneed: two standard mic clips, two well-built shockmounts,pop filters, windscreens, even a stereo bar! You also getcardioid and omni capsules for both. I’ve used these asone might expect—stereo drum overheads, acousticguitar, upright piano, percussion, etc.—and they havebeen solid on every source. I was particularly stoked onthe X/Y drum application of these mics; I ended up witha surprising amount of detail, range, and really nice “air”from the cymbals. The CL2s did not disappoint when usedas a cello mic in conjunction with a UA 610 preamp. Asingle CL2 with no filtering, placed about 3 ft away, kindabetween the bridge and f-hole, returned a perfectlynatural, resonant tone. Hey, I even used the CL2s to micup a play at my son’s school, and I can say withconfidence that the second and third–graders neversounded better. The parents all started using descriptiveslike “punchy” and “warm”. (They usually ask me to maketheir kids sound like The Beatles—weird, huh?) Anyway,great little mics; a steal at $299 for the set.

The VR88 is one of a number of new ribbons that havecropped up lately, and while it won’t be replacing my trustyRoyer, it definitely has its own character and is a flexibleand durable “entry-level” ribbon. I use the term entry-levelwithout any condescension, but only to illustrate how easyit is to screw up a ribbon mic, either by accident or blatantabuse. The VR88 is actually pretty tough and can withstandhigher SPLs than most ribbons; I used this thing on a rockkick drum, and it weathered the beating admirably, and itsounded great! I would never subject my tender Royer tothat kind of brutality. It’s also phantom-powered (no more“did I just blow the ribbon again?”) so you don’t need ahigh-gain preamp. It comes with a massive spider-styleshockmount, so it’s a bit of a thug, really. Furthering itsthuggish profile is the industrial design of the VR88, whichis somewhere between that of a flattened RCA 77A andR2D2’s mug shot. Like the CL2s, it has its own toughaluminum case, plus a cheapish-looking right-angle XLRcable (didn’t trust the cable, but that’s probably just mylong-standing cable snobbery). For rock music, I really likedit on kick drum and bass amp; it seemed to consistentlyreturn an articulate and “tight” low end. I also notedexceptional results with it in front of an upright acousticbass placed 3 ft from the bridge. Conversely, I didn’t carefor it as a vocal mic at all, as I found it a shade too dull-sounding and lacking in clarity. This may, however, be aresult of a pronounced proximity effect, as I tend to recordvocals up close, usually at distances of less than 10’’ awayfrom the mic. If you are looking for a percussive or woodysound for acoustic guitars, the VR88 could work well heretoo; on the other hand, I generally prefer a brighteracoustic tone. If you’re ribbon-curious, on a budget, andare into the droid look, pick one up. (CL2 pair $299 MSRP,VR88 $499; www.samsontech.com)

–Dana Gumbiner, www.stationtostationrecording.com

66/Tape Op#60/Gear Reviews/(continues on page 68)

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/67

A great tracking room inNorthern California

open to freelance engineersand studio-savvy musicians.

2 inch 16 & 24 track,

Pro Tools HD,$250/day

Huge recording room w/ 30 ft. ceilings and lots of isolation areas. MCI two inch recorder, Pro Tools HD3, Apogee Rosetta 800’s, Lucid clock,

Neve 34128 16 by 4 consoleDaking 16 by 8 console

Preamps/dynamics: Millenia Media (5),Neve 1272 (2) & 1073 EQ, Avalon 737,UA 2192, 2-610, 2108, 2176 & LA-2A/3A,

Drawmer 1969/S3, DBX 166, Helios, Focusrite ISA 220 & Red EQ, Pultec EQH-2,Chandler TG’s (EMI), Thermionic Phoenix,Telefunken V72 (2), Altec 438C & 1567,Meek VC1&6Q, Distressor (2), Quad-8 EQs,Great River EQ2NV, Fairchild 663, SE C2,Mercury M66, Sta-Level, Gates SA-39,

Summit MPC-100A, EQP-200B & TLA 50.Mics: Neumann U67 & CMV 563’s, Elam 251,RCA 77 & 74, AKG 414’s, Shure KSM-32, SM-7/58/57’s, Sennheiser 421’s & 409’s,Coles, Wunder C-12/U-47, Blue Mouse/Blueberry, Royer R121’s/SF-12, more.

Lots of album credits.Lots of studio instruments.For more info contact John:

916-444-5241<John@tapeop.com>

<www.tapeop.com/john>

M-AudioNRV10 mixer/interfaceWhen I first saw the NRV10 at the NAMM show in

January, I said out loud, “Duh! Why didn’t anyone elsethink of doing this?” The sucker is an analog mixerand multichannel audio interface in one. It makes aton of sense! Well, I finally got one, and you knowwhat, the pocket-protector geeks at M-Audiooutgeeked me and made it even more useful than Ioriginally thought it would be.

Sure, you can use it as a regular 8x2 analog mixer. It’sgot six input faders. Faders 1-4 can be switched betweenmic or line inputs. (You can keep both the XLR mic andTRS line inputs plugged in at the same time—nounpatching necessary.) Phantom power for the mics canbe turned on or off globally. And the line inputs have morethan enough gain to be used as instrument DIs. Fader 5/6is selectable between a mono mic input and a stereo lineinput. Fader 7/8 is a stereo line input. Each fader has athree-band EQ, a prefader Aux 1 send, and a postfaderAux 2 send. Aux 2 simultaneously feeds the Aux 2 outputand the DFX, a built-in digital effects unit. And each fadercan be assigned to either the Mix bus or the Cue bus. TheCue bus is exclusive of the Mix bus—perfect for DJs orperformers who need a foolproof way to audition recordsor samples while the Mix bus is feeding the house sound.Additionally, the first four faders have analog inserts. Themaster section has faders for Phones and Ctrl Room outputlevels, and there are two stereo returns. The DFX has twoknobs allowing you to select a preset from sixteenprograms and sixteen variations of each program. All in all,the NRV10 is very straightforward and well laid-out. Butthings really get interesting when you plug this mixer intothe FireWire port of your computer.

As a FireWire audio interface, you get ten channels inand ten channels out, at up to 24-bit, 96 kHz resolution—these channels are labeled FW 1-10. FW 1-8 are set up liketape sends/returns (let’s call them DAW sends/returns) onFaders 1-7/8 (remember, Faders 5/6 and 7/8 are stereo).FW 9/10 are sent to the DAW from the Mix bus, and theyreturn to the NRV10 through two knobs that you can useto blend FW 9/10 into Ctrl Room and Phonesindependently. What does this all mean? Well, let’s talkworkflow now.

After reading the well-written manual, as my first testof the system, I connected the NRV10 to my Sonyhandheld micro PC (Tape Op #57) running Pro Tools M-Powered. Then I fed it eight tracks from another computer,as if I were recording basics for a whole band. Four tracksfor drums landed on Faders 5/6 and 7/8 via the lineinputs. (In a real tracking situation, I would have usedexternal preamps to feed these two faders.) Scratch vocal,two guitars, and a bass went into Faders 1-4. (And in areal session, these would have come through the built-inmic inputs.) Then I used the DAW sends on FW 1-8 likedirect outs to the DAW, and I recorded eight individualtracks into Pro Tools. I created two headphone feeds formy pretend band: one using prefader Aux 1; and a secondusing the NRV10’s Mix bus inserts (this is a cheat), whichI fed to a Samson Q5 headphone amp (Tape Op #29). Bothof these headphone feeds were generated pre–A/Dconverter; therefore, they had zero latency. To monitor theactual recorded signals, I created a mix in Pro Tools and

brought it back on FW 9/10 so it was the only source toCtrl Room (because of the previously mentioned cheat).This post-DAW mix, of course, exhibited converter andbuffer–induced latency, making it suitable only for me, theengineer, to monitor, and not for my pretend band. I waspsyched that I could get two different zero-latency feedsgoing with the Mix bus inserts and Aux 1, but I really wishthe NRV10 had two independently-assignable headphoneoutputs—one for the engineer and one for the performers,or in some cases, both for the performers.

Now it was time for overdubs, so I pulled out somereal mics to record myself. Within Pro Tools, I submixedthe basic tracks and returned them as stems to the NRV10via FW 3-10 onto Faders 3-7/8 and assigned FW 9/10 toPhones. Then I used Faders 1 and 2 for recording newtracks, feeding them to the DAW via FW 1/2. Theheadphone mix came from prefader Aux 1. And I used theDFX to add reverb to the headphone mix without thereverb getting into the tracks being recorded. Cool!

Can I tell you that I absolutely hate creatingheadphone mixes in software with on-screen faders andaux sends? Creating a headphone mix on an actual mixeris so much easier—just grab knobs and turn them! Andjust as in recording basics with the NRV10, channels thatare currently being recorded as overdubs can be monitoredwith zero latency. I should emphasize at this point thatyou can do all this with a separate mixer and interface, butthe NRV10 is so well integrated that you don’t have torepatch anything as you go between tracking,overdubbing, and mixing.

And speaking of mixing, all I had to do was returneight channels of stems from Pro Tools to Faders 1-7/8 viaFW 1-8, and I had real EQs as well as effects loops. Oh,and the Mix bus insert was handy for slapping on a stereocompressor. Unfortunately, the analog inserts on theFaders can’t be switched to post-DAC (they only work onpre-DAC signals), so they can’t be used during mixdown.Too bad, because it would’ve been nice to use a buscompressor on the drum submix. Also too bad that theDAW returns on FW 1-8 are always pre-EQ, because you canswitch the DAW sends to post-EQ—watch out forfeedback! Personally, I think this is a design omission; theswitch for the DAW sends/returns should instead moveboth the sends and the returns pre or post–EQ, not just thesends. Furthermore, the 45 mm linear faders are so shortand sticky that you can’t really mix with them—you haveto “set and forget” them. Smooth 60 mm faders (like onMackie compact mixers) would have been more useful. Orif M-Audio really wanted to save space, I think rotaryknobs would have been better than the 45 mm faders.

There are lots of useful LEDs, including peakindicators for Faders 1-7/8 and the DFX, as well as statuslights for phantom power and FireWire. A Kensington lockport is on the back so the mixer won’t grow legs.Unfortunately, there’s no word clock input, and I wishinputs 5/6 and 7/8 were switchable to RIAA curve for usewith turntables. But considering that M-Audio reallythought through various workflows to make the NRV10 asflexible as it is, my various complaints read more like awish list for a future release. My guess is that there willsoon be copycats of the NRV10 coming our way. Like Isaid, I can’t believe no one else has done anything likethis before. ($899.95 MSRP; www.m-audio.com) –AH

68/Tape Op#60/Gear Reviews/(continues on page 70)

Analog tape by RMGI

Pro A/V hard drives by Avastor&

Glyph

Full lines of data media and

accessories

Always FREE ground shippingNO Minimum orders

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/69

70/Tape Op#60/Gear Reviews/(continues on page 72)

TannoyEllipse 8 iDP studio monitorTS212 iDP subwooferI love the Bag End M-6 Time-Align monitors (Tape Op

#50) that I have in my living room for their accurate imaging;these were my first long-term experience with coaxial driversfeaturing a tweeter mounted within the center of the woofer.So I was excited to demo Tannoy’s top-of-the-line Ellipsepowered monitors, which use the British company’strademarked Dual Concentric technology. The original coaxialspeaker was the Altec Duplex, first available as a 12’’ versionin 1941 followed soon thereafter by a 15’’ version in 1943.The latter is commonly known as the “604”—probably themost popular soffit-mounted studio speaker of all time. TheDuplex featured a conventional horn tweeter with itscompression driver mounted within the center of the woofer’smagnet structure, and the outer flare of the horn in front ofthe woofer cone. Tannoy’s first Dual Concentric, released in1947, improved upon the coaxial principal by utilizing aspecially-shaped (and expensive) 15’’ woofer cone that servedas the outer flare of the horn tweeter. With this designchange, not only was the whole woofer cone unobstructed,but the wider horn aperture meant a lower cut-off frequencyfor the tweeter. The crossover was set one octave above thisnatural cut-off, reducing distortion significantly. The biggestproblem with Tannoy’s original design was interactionbetween the woofer and the tweeter; as the woofer moved inand out, the shape of the outer horn was effectivelychanging, affecting the output of the tweeter. Modern TannoyDual Concentric speakers are unique in that they employ aprecisely-shaped Tulip Waveguide for the tweeter within thewoofer, and the molded polypropylene woofer is now shapedto stay out of the tweeter’s way. The result? Time-aligned,point-source imaging with very little interaction between thetwo drivers and consistent dispersion throughout the wholefrequency spectrum.

The pair of Ellipse 8 iDP monitors and a matchingTS212 iDP subwoofer that Tannoy sent me arrived on ashipping pallet. Unpacking these heavyweights was quite achore. Tannoy could take a cue from companies likePanasonic and Sony, who offer sturdy, multilayer, reusableboxes that disassemble around the product, leaving theunpacked product unencumbered and easy to lift. Even withtwo long-armed people, it was impossible to lift thesubwoofer out of the box. Unfortunately, I didn’t have theoption of cutting apart the box, so we had to tip the boxover, which meant the subwoofer would be sliding out onone of its fabric covers. (The speaker has fabric covers onthree sides, while the uncovered rear side has protrudingheat fins.) Notwithstanding a sub-par box, Tannoy couldhave designed the internal foam packing so that speakerand packaging could be slid out together without fear ofdamage. While not quite as difficult to unpack, the Ellipsemonitor, because of its rounded form, required dry handsand extra care. Plus, I was tempted to use the top-mountedSuperTweeter pod as a handhold, but a big-lettered warningstrategically placed inside the box warned me against it.

Once unpacked, I found the system easy—and quitefun—for a geek like me to set up. The iDP in each monikerrefers to Interactive Digital Programming. In a multi-speakerconfiguration, one monitor is the master and sends digitalaudio and control information to all the other monitors via

CAT5 cables. (The master has both analog and digital audioinputs while the slaves have only CAT5 connectors. High-quality shielded CAT5 cables are included.) The manual hasvery clear diagrams and describes in detail how to configureiDP systems from 2.1 all the way up to 7.1, with up to threesubwoofers. (A common misconception is that the .1 refersto the number of subwoofers when it actually correspondsto the LFE channel, which is a whole different channel ofinformation much like L is different than R in a stereosignal. With bass management enabled in a three-subsystem, the center sub would output the LFE channeltogether with the center channel’s low-frequency content,while the left and right subs would handle the low-frequency content of the left and right channels.)

Once I’d finished interconnecting the Ellipse 8 iDPmonitors and the TS212 iDP subwoofer, I used the side-mounted control panel on the master 8 iDP to align thesystem. Although the panel is limited to a two-line LCDdisplay and four buttons, I had no problem navigating thehierarchical menu system. I especially liked the fact that alltweakable parameters throughout the hierarchy arehighlighted with an asterisk; simple consistencies like thisreally do make for a better user-experience. From the masterpanel, I turned on the built-in pink-noise generator andproceeded to take measurements with my Terrasonde ATB-1.Long story short, I didn’t have to employ any of the Ellipse’sfilters because the response was very flat out-of-the-box inmy carefully-treated control room, but I did spend a numberof days trying out different settings. All filtering (includingthe primary crossover) is done digitally (except for theSuperTweeter’s crossover, which is passive and post-amplification). I found that both the high and low filterssound quite smooth, and their slope seems to vary as youincrease or decrease energy; maximum change is 6 dB up ordown. Keep in mind that the filters are not there to fixextreme anomalies in your room’s acoustics, and without theoptional PC-iP installer software, there are no sharp filters toget you in trouble. Predefined scenes are available forsituations like “Console”, “Wall”, “Corner”, etc.; but there’sno explanation of how these change the filters. Presetsallow you to store up to fifteen setups; saved parametersinclude filter and relative-level settings, as well as bassmanagement, mute status, and X-Curve. The latter refers toan ANSI/SMTPE specification for mixing in a small room.Also, seventeen factory presets are included. I’m glad that Ihad my hearing protectors on when I employed the pink-noise generator for the first time—very loud at its defaultsetting. Turning it down was more difficult than it had tobe because you have to navigate to a different area of themenu structure to change level; a level control should beplaced right next to on/off. And without either the optionalhardware or software remote, it’s laborious to make changesusing the speaker’s side-mounted control panel, especially ifthere’s a recording console in the way between yourlistening position and the speaker! Also, effectivesubwoofer placement requires moving the subwoofer aroundto find its optimal spot. Unlike handle-equipped Genelecsubs, which are obviously designed for professionalenvironments, the Tannoy is meant to look pretty—in acontemporary furniture kind of way—so it’s almost as hardto move as it is to unpack; there’s nothing to grab hold of.The TS212 iDP does have both a polarity switch and avariable phase control, alleviating some of the pain ofplacing it. To phase-align the subwoofer to the main

monitors, you can flip the sub’s polarity (knowing that thedigital signal feeding it can’t be accidentally polarity-reversed), then vary the phase until you get full cancellationof the crossover frequency at the listening position, thenflip the polarity back to normal.

Once set up, I spent months listening to and usingthese speakers, and I was quite impressed. Fantasticimaging, and exceptionally smooth across the wholespectrum! In fact, the first time I sat down for an extendedtime in front of these speakers, I was a bit confused becausethere seemed to be a bit of “scooping” going on—maybe adip in the upper mids or lower highs? But a second set ofmeasurements with my audio analyzer confirmed that theresponse was flat at mix position—very close to theresponse I was getting with my ADAM S3-As in the mids andhighs. But over time, I realized that what I initiallyperceived as a loss of energy was actually a function of theDual Concentric system exhibiting very little distortion andinter-driver interference in the crossover region, with itsnear-perfect alignment of the drivers. If you haven’t spentsome time with a modern Tannoy Dual Concentric monitor,I think you’ll also be amazed that the crossover is no longerdiscernable the first time you give it a good long listen—especially if you listen to anything with well-recordedvocals. Also, I was at first doubting of the SuperTweeterbecause you can’t really hear it by itself when you’re sittingbehind the console. I wish that there were a way to turn iton/off remotely—as this kind of A/B’ing might make thebenefits clearer. Switching between 96 kHz and 44.1 kHzmixes of the same song, I felt that I could hear theinteraction between certain tracks at 96 kHz—especiallyride-cymbal bleed—better with the Tannoys than with myADAMs. But honestly, I can’t tell you if this was a result ofthe SuperTweeter or the Dual Concentric design—or both.In any case, it’s clear that the system as a whole worksextremely well.

I should note that I tried both the analog and digitalinputs to the master Ellipse 8 iDP. Obviously, there’s an A-Dconverter inside since all the processing and distribution isin the digital domain. I started with the analog inputs, andof course, the benefits of Dual Concentric made for a greatlistening experience. Next I tried the digital output of myDMX-R100 console, and the soundstage actually collapsed abit! But I’ll conjecture that the DMX-R100’s digital outssuffer from a poorly-shaped signal just like its WC outputdoes (as noted in my review of the Drawmer M-Clock in TapeOp #51). I then tried locking the 8 iDP to its WC input (usingthe M-Clock that was also clocking the console). Woah!Huge difference! And that’s what I stuck with.

These are definitely the smoothest-sounding speakersI’ve had in my studio, especially in the upper mids, in andnear the crossover region. Plus, the subwoofer’s variablephase control and 4th-order low-pass filter made certainthat the transition to the sub was also seamless. Everythingabout the iDP monitors and subwoofer—even down to thewell-written setup guides in the manual—make for anextremely coherent system, and the result is extremelycoherent tonality and imaging. These speakers evenprompted me to pull out my Rega turntable and listen tosome old vinyl (via my Apogee AD-16X at 96 kHz), and wow,what a soundstage. (Ellipse 8 iDP Master $2500 MSRP, Slave$2200; TS212 iDP $3095; www.tannoy.com) –AH

Gear Reviews(continued on page 72)/Tape Op#60/71

T ape O p i s madepo s s i b l e b y ou ra d v e r t i s e r s .

Please support them and tell themyou saw their ad in Tape Op.

TannoyReveal 6D active nearfieldsWhen Andy first asked me to take a listen to the new Tannoy

Reveal 6D studio monitors, I was eager to hear what improvementshad been made from its predecessor the Reveal Active, a speakerthat I wasn’t too impressed with but with which I was alreadyfamiliar. After working with the Tannoy Reveal 6D for about twomonths, I can say that it does sound better.

The most useful and impressive improvement is the abilityto tune your monitors to the room. Having recently tested JBL’sroom-tuning system, I was a bit wary about the reliability andfeasibility of any speaker properly tuning itself to anenvironment. However, I found that Tannoy’s system was notonly more straightforward, but left me with more informationabout the acoustics of the room. Using the included Activ Assistsoftware, I was able to plug in the microphone and cables(included) to a laptop, and within seconds, get a bandwidthreading on what the speaker was outputting. The software wasthen able to interpret and make correction recommendationsfrom a selection of over 2000 possibilities. Making theadjustments required setting the two banks of DIP switches onthe rear of each speaker to what the software suggested. Thefirst bank of ten DIP switches controls low-frequency alignment,mid/near/close–field, and half/quarter and eighth–spacecompensation, while the second bank controls mid-band andhigh-frequency shelving trim.

Once I was properly calibrated to the room, I found mymixes came out sounding honest and the way they wereintended to sound—which I rate as a huge success for a speaker.If I had nitpick, I found the high mids to be a bit brittle for mytaste, leaving a mix sounding slightly less shimmery if I wasn’tcareful to push the top end slightly more than I was used to.(I’ve worked extensively with Dynaudio BM15A monitors, and Ifound them to have more warmth and definition than theTannoys, but these are much bigger speakers (with a 10’’ woofer)that cost over twice as much.) Overall, I noticed a much fullerand richer sound from the Reveal 6D compared to Tannoy’sprevious models. But like most gear decisions, it comes down topreference. ($629 MSRP each; www.tannoy.com)

–Josh Peck <josh@thelodge.com>

Dangerous MusicMonitor STProbably more than ever, recording studios have seen a need for

monitoring different inputs and routing these signals to a variety ofspeakers. In my studio, we monitor the DAW, console LR, consolecontrol room out, CD, iPod, and computer outputs. We listen throughthree different speaker/amp combos plus a subwoofer. Our old Allen &Heath console from the ‘80s is fine but only allows for two speakerselects and two stereo inputs. Routing had become tedious, and afterlooking at all the capacitors and crap in the signal path, I was startingto guess that I wasn’t hearing all the music. When Dangerous unveiledthe Monitor ST, I knew it was what I was looking for. There’s a 1RU-height main unit with two DB-25 connectors on the rear for I/O, and apair of XLR jacks for the Aux Input. On the front is a talkback mic, alongwith jacks for a remote talkback mic and headphones, as well as levelknobs for headphones, talkback, main out to the cue outputs, aux inputto cue, aux to main, and Input 4 (great for the CD player). The remote,which communicates with the main unit via CAT5 cable, is a handsome,aluminum, bridge-shaped block that can sit well on a console ordesktop. The switches—and in particular the main volume knob—sendinfo to the rack unit where routing and gain is adjusted viamicroprocessor-controlled relays—real step attenuation instead ofcheap VCAs. You can hear the relays in the main unit physically click asyou adjust volume (which seemed odd at first, but now it’s a familiaraudible cue for me when I’m changing levels). Backlit pushbuttonsallow for speaker and input selection, speaker muting, talkback, monocollapse, dim, and programming. Programming allows for adjustinglevel of the inputs and speaker outputs, compensating for –10 dBVconsumer gear, and even changing the mute dim mode.

The ST is a dream. With the ability to route four sources to threespeaker outputs, plus control the sub, it allows us to easily jump betweenmonitors and input sources for referencing mixes, moving between theconsole and Pro Tools, and such. From the minute we had it wired up andturned on, it felt natural and easy to use. After a little P-touch labeling,freelance engineers jumped right into using the STwithout any questions.Audio quality is clearer than our console ever let us hear before. Beingable to drag the remote around the listening area instead of beingchained to the console allowed better ergonomic setups and less weirdarm stretching. The talkback (as well as the other buttons too) featuresa unique operation: hold the button down and talk (like on mostconsoles), and the TB unlatches when done; tap the button, and the TBstays latched while you talk and edit tracks at the same time; hit it againto unlatch. Perfect. The Slate output on the rear of the main unit can bebrought out to the patchbay and then sent to headphones (in our case,the Furman HDS-16 system reviewed in Tape Op #55) so that the playerscan hear you through the talkback. There’s a jack for a secondary remoteTB, so we built a little pushbutton/XLR switch; now we can use regularmic cables to put the remote TB switch as far from the console as needed.(Note that this remote TB jack doesn’t dim the monitors.) There’s even aninput for a remote TB mic, handy if the main unit is not racked nearby.[Unfortunately, the jack for the remote mic is on the front while the jackfor the remote switch is on the back! Kludgy wiring if you want to connecta purpose-built TB mic with a built-in switch. –AH]

The ST can be combined with the SR expansion (another 1RU-height device) so that surround speakers and inputs can be controlledin the same way, and calibrated accurately as well. Not bad for only$1499 MSRP for the SR.

Got more than one set of speakers? Want the assurance that yoursources are getting to the speakers uncolored by your console? Got afew different sources to compare at mixdown? For its quality, featuresand thoughtful design, the ST can’t be beat, and I’m having a hard timeremembering how I got by without it.

($2,199 MSRP; www.dangerousmusic.com) –LC

SE ElectronicsR-1 ribbon micMy guess is that a lot of people considering the

purchase of the SE R-1 will wonder how it compares tothe Royer R-121. Both feature a rectangular ribbonthat’s offset-mounted within the magnet structure (aRoyer innovation) to allow greater ribbon excursion,which equates to higher SPL capability and less chanceof ribbon damage when pointed in one direction, anda brighter sound in the other direction. The first thingI noticed was that the SE R-1 reveals greater proximityeffect than the R-121, especially at distances of 5’’ orless. I can get it to sound “tubby” very easily bymoving it closer to the source. Great for changing thetone of a guitar amp. But for vocals, depending on theskill of the singer, this can be a good thing or a badthing; a talented singer will use mic’ing distance andtherefore proximity effect to his or her advantage. Thenext thing I noticed was how the SE R-1 reacts to myGreat River MP-2NV preamp’s input impedance switch.Engaging the switch and thus lowering the inputimpedance to 300 Ohms really opens up the sound ofthe SE R-1without making it too thin. When I’m mixingguitar amps recorded with an R-121, I find that in mostcases, I have to peel away some lower midrange tomake room for bass and drums and to generally clearup the mix. But in general, when I record Fender ampsthrough an R-121 with the MP-2NV’s impedance switchengaged, the sound seems a little too thin for me asthere’s too much high-freq lift and the low-end slopesaway too much. With the SE R-1, the MP-2NV’s lowerinput impedance setting is “just right” for me; theguitar sits forward in the mix without sounding overlyEQ’ed. On the other hand, if you want a crunchier topend, the SE R-1 is probably not the right mic as it tendsto soften the highs more than the R-121 does (andthere’s an associated loss of detail), which makes theR-1 a great choice for recording singers or instrumentsthat tend toward sibilance or screechiness. Andspeaking of crunchy, I’ve never been successfulrecording distorted rhythm parts on my MarshallJCM800 Model 4210 combo with an R-121. On theother hand, the SE R-1 in front of the 4210 goingthrough a Hamptone Silverbox 4 sounds great. The lowend is right where I want it, and the 4210’s tendencyto go thin when it goes into extreme distortion isn’taccentuated as it sometimes is when I use an R-121. Ialso used the SE R-1 to great effect recordingtambourine. This is an instrument that can really soundharsh and spikey if recorded improperly. With the SE, Igot a nice, consistent sound by aiming the dark side ofthe mic at the tambourine and letting the bright sidepick up reflections off the wall, limiting (clipping) witha Radius 30, and then squashing with a FATSO Jr. Tosum it up, the SE R-1 and the R-121 have very similarvoicing, but there are notable differences. SE has agenerous try-before-buy policy. If you’re in the marketfor a ribbon, check out the SE website for details on the7-day loan program.

($999 MSRP; www.seelectronics.com) –AH

Telefunken | USARM-5C ribbon micStudents enrolled in the Audio Production program

at Webster University, St. Louis and I had the greatexperience of evaluating the new Telefunken USA ribbonmicrophone, the RM-5C. The students participated asengineers, listeners and musicians. The setup was quickand not at all scientific, but informative anyway. We usedonly two microphones, a classic Coles 4038 and theRM-5C. As I suspected, these mics are pretty much polaropposites. The sound sources were male voice, femalevoice, acoustic guitar, tenor saxophone, and a pair ofcongas. The signal path was simple—microphone toGordon Instruments Model 5 preamp to RADAR 24running at 24 bits, 96 kHz.

Listening to male and female voice, the RM-5C gavea good sound right off. With a student speaking 4’’ awayfrom the microphone, the bass was full. Proximity effectwas well controlled even at that distance. The bass wastight—never muffled or muddy. Characteristic of themicrophone is a rise in the mid and high frequencies.Speech sibilance was highlighted but not out of balance.The bass bump at 200 Hz creates some bottom,preventing the mic from being too bright overall. I thinkit’s important for me to stress that in no circumstance didthe RM-5C ever sound harsh, strident, or unpleasant. Itmaintains its appeal with a smooth sound even thoughits frequency response is “tipped up”. The Coles offered itclassic warmth and smoothness, but was dull withoutsome equalization. The 4038’s proximity effect also madeit sound tubby. The RM-5C has a very tight cardioidpattern with some tonal change at 90 and 270 degrees.The rejection at 180 degrees was excellent. What washeard from that angle still sounded quite good.

For the instruments, we placed the RM-5C for “bestsound”. The mic’s 200 Hz bump is large enough to addsome sense of bass for voice. However, it didn’t give thenecessary bottom to the tenor sax (as a jazz instrument)that the Coles did. The RM-5C was certainly a good choicefor guitar. As I listened to the guitar in the control roomand then again in the studio, the RM-5Cwas giving us theguitar pretty much as it sounded in the studio. TheTelefunken was an instant winner for congas. The skinand “thunk” of the drums were wonderfully captured bythe mic. Transient response was very good. The 4038simply couldn’t match that character.

The RM-5C is well-made, handsome, and stylish. It isa microphone worth owning. I would like to see awooden box for the mic; I think that is necessary. I wouldlike to see a better shockmount, if only as an option, butthe current one is acceptable. The Audio Productionstudents and I were quite impressed with this newmicrophone. ($TBA; www.telefunkenusa.com)

–Barry Hufker, www.hufkerrecording.com

72/Tape Op#60/Gear Reviews/(continues on page 74)

T ape Op i s madepo s s i b l e b y ou ra d v e r t i s e r s .

Please support them and tell themyou saw their ad in Tape Op.

74/Tape Op#60/Gear Reviews/(Fin.)

Chameleon LabsTS-1 small-diaphragm condenser micThe sonic combination of a small-capsule microphone

diaphragm with a tube amplifier can be a thoroughlypleasing one for many applications. The high-frequencydefinition and quick transient-response of the smalldiaphragm coupled with the moderating and sweeteningresponse of a well-designed tube circuit can be magical, andsounds like nothing else. I’ve got a bunch of Altec “lipsticktube” microphones, both omni and cardioid, and love themfor overheads and acoustic guitar. More recently, we’ve beenlucky to own a Telefunken KM 256C, which rules on acousticguitar and piano top end, and a Telefunken SM 2 stereo tubeSDC, which is equally lovely on strings and as a drum-kitoverhead. These days, those microphones, for all theirbeauties, are costly both to purchase and to maintain.

When I first got involved in recording (during theCretaceous or was it the Mesozoic Era?), it seems that therewere only two classes of microphones: mundane andmoderately priced; and great but expensive. It is wonderfulto see good affordable alternatives becoming available—astellar example being the Chameleon Labs TS-1 small-diaphragm tube mic. Chameleon makes products availablethat are very strong in the bang-for-the-buck category, withgood craftsmanship and warranties. They often poll peopleas to what they would like to have available. In fact, atTapeOpCon 2007, they had a drawing for a free TS-1, and onthe entry form was a big space for “what would you like usto offer next?”

The pencil-type TS-1 has a 3 micron diaphragm anduses a 5840 pentode tube, strapped for triode operation.This tube is also used in the amplified Royer ribbon mics,and is the same as the European EF732 used in some of theTelefunken USA re-issues. It looks nice with its little ventsfor the tube and gets pleasantly warm when in use. Thecircuit is “plate loaded” with a high-ratio transformer insidethe microphone body, and the power supply has sevenstages of R/C filtering on the non-regulated B+, four stagesof filtering on the regulated heater voltage, and a toroidaltransformer. Translation? It’s quiet.

Included in the snazzy, lockable aluminum suitcase arethe 115/230 V power supply, tube microphone body, bothcardioid and omni capsules, a 25 ft seven-pin cable, foamwindscreen, and shockmount with spare elastics. This lastinclusion may sound small, but consider that I just spent$60 on elastics for three Neumann suspension mounts.Available options for the TS-1 include a hypercardioidcapsule ($62), and the ADP-1 adapter ($42) for AKG CKseries capsules (though not the CK 5). So, C 451 lovers can“tube” their capsules!

The power supply is interesting in that it has both apower switch and a standby switch, like a tube guitar amp.It’s recommended to turn the power switch on first, then liftthe standby switch after ten or fifteen seconds, allowingthe plate (B+) voltage to be turned on after the tube hasheated to full temperature; this extends the life of the tube.Generally, it’s a good idea to let tube microphones stabilizefor fifteen minutes or more before use; the same goes fortube instrument amplifiers, compressors, and equalizers.The TS-1 can also be put into standby mode when taking abreak, leaving it thermally stabilized and ready to use,though the manual recommends not leaving it in standbyfor more than a half hour.

I do have, and love madly, a custom-built tube LDC alsodesigned by Professor Terry Setter (the TS) of EvergreenState College in Olympia, Washington—an excellent humanbeing who some of you may have met at past TapeOpCons.Terry also designed the large-capsule Chameleon TS-2microphone, whose power supply features a variable heatervoltage; it will be interesting to see how the TS-1’s soundmight be varied using it.

The shockmount works well and holds the microphonessnugly. The cable between the PS and mic is rugged andmakes a good connection. In the six months that I havebeen using a pair of TS-1s, I have had no problems withthem—nary a sputter. They do carry a one-year warranty.The TS-1 has no internal shockmount or pop filter, and soshould be used with the supplied mount, and with awindscreen if used as a vocal microphone or outdoors. Ihave used it as a vocal mic, with great results from somesingers, though it wouldn’t be my usual first choice justbased on its type.

The Chameleon Labs TS-1 is a marvelous instrument.They have been used on nearly every project in the timethey’ve been here. They excel particularly as drumoverheads, on acoustic guitar, string bass and otherstringed instruments, on percussion, and piano. They havea sweet top-end but are not strident. I love ouraforementioned Telefunken SM 2 for overheads and thevelvety bell-like quality that it imparts. The Chameleons tome sound bolder and more sharply etched, and I have to sayare my new favorites for this application. I find that theytend to need little to no equalization when used as drumoverheads or on acoustic instruments and percussion.

It’s cool that the TS-1 comes with both cardioid andomnidirectional capsules. It is very much worth outgrowingthe sound reinforcement habit of always using directionalmics and experimenting with omnis. When using the TS-1 asa drum mic, especially when the mics are farther away, theomni capsule can open up the room nicely and eliminate orreduce the coloration that can come from off-axis pickup.Likewise, omnis are underused, in my opinion, on acousticguitars. Since they don’t exhibit the rising bass fromproximity that cardioid and other directional mics do, theycan be very useful for guitarists who move around a lot. Youcan control the varying volume easily with compression orgain riding as needed, but it’s very useful to have the timbreremain the same—the guitar sits more stably in the mix.

Though the TS-1 has no pad, it doesn’t seem to needone. It’s rated at a maximum of 130 dB SPL, and I haven’tdetected distortion even from loud drummers. It’s prettygreat on snare drum too—I need a third one! The TS-1seems to sell for not much less than MSRP—rightfully so.It’s totally worth it. –Mark Rubel, www.pogostudio.net

We’ve had a pair of TS-1’s at The Hangar for the last sixmonths or so, and they’ve seen a fair amount of use in thattime. It seems that almost every time I walk back to thestudio, there’s at least one TS-1 out on the floor. I’ve made apoint of asking the engineers what they thought about theTS-1 and listening to the track. One of the TS-1’s first sessionswas with engineer Ralph Stover. I’ve always loved the drumsounds Ralph gets here. A near perfect mix of close-mic’ingand room sound-commercial but not at all sterile sounding.He always seems to get set up very quickly, using essentiallythe same mics and preamps each session, going for what heknows will work. That’s why I was a bit surprised to see theTS-1 as the snare mic. “Sounds amazing,” was Ralph’scomment, and I had to agree. Everything you wanted fromthe snare, solid body – not too woofy - and nice top end, but

not too much high end; nor was it harsh. Very naturalsounding. The next time I heard the TS-1 on a track was whenengineer, and Tape Op’s pre-press dude, Scott McChane usedthem on an acoustic guitar track for Alaska based artist, MattHopper. Again, the mic just sounded great - really naturalwith just the right amount of low mids and a nice, natural topend. On a session for the band Say No More on Drive ThruRecords, engineer Robert Cheek used the TS-1s for top andbottom snare mics (in conjunction with a Heil PR-20) andkept them up for the entire record. The snare had that perfectpop/punk snare tone that only got better when Robert ran itthrough the Chandler/EMI TG 12413 limiter and TG12345 EQ.Engineer Eric Broyhill has also been using the TS-1s asoverheads, and his comment was, “They sound awesome.Warm but with an extended top end. I could really see eachcymbal without it being washy. I had them placed pretty hightoo, about eight feet above the kit.” This mic seems to excelat capturing sources with potentially challenging top-endtransients as noted in the examples here.

I’ve always really liked SDC’s as used above, but I’veheard some that are brittle and harsh from over-hyped topend. Or, the preamp section seems to be less than flatteringabove 8 kHz or so, adding an unpleasant distortion thatsounds great on really shitty worn-out acoustic guitar strings,beat-up snare heads, and filthy cymbals, but not so nice ongood instruments with good players. And who amongst usreally wants to buy mics that only sound good on shittysources? For me, the holy grail of SDC’s is the Neumann KM 84, a mic I’ve used extensively over the years but don’tcurrently own due to its cost. Of course, I’ve always wantedto hear, but have not yet been fortunate enough to hear, thetube-based Neumann KM 54, a mic that is essentially thesame type as the TS-1. I’ve found the Audio Technica Pro 37to be a very nice and affordably priced SDC. But, the mic thathas kept me from buying a costly pair of KM 84s on eBay isthe THE KA-04 body with the THE cardioid capsule. This micis so close to what I remember the KM-84 sounding like, thatwhatever differences there are, I’m going to just chalk themup to my auditory-brain interface and my wallet-braininterface keeping a happy balance. I, and all of the engineersabove, have been using the THEs for the past three years, andthey are universally regarded as sounding pretty muchexcellent on whatever source they’re put on.

So, as a final test of the TS-1, I thought it would beinteresting to compare them to the THEs that we all knowand love around The Hangar. Scott, Bryce Gonzales, and Imade two short recordings with both mics: a Guild steelstring acoustic both strummed and finger picked; and a hi-hat cymbal both open and closed. On both sources, both micssounded excellent and remarkably close to each other,especially below 8 kHz or so. But, the THE had a bit moreextended top end and better transient response. I couldn’treally say that one or the other mic sounded better, they bothsounded great. The THE has had years of successful use ontracks here by all of the above engineers, and I think the TS-1will soon be joining it. The main difference is in the top endas noted. If I were recording to analog tape, I’d probably putup the THE first, whereas if I was recording to digital, I’dprobably go with the TS-1. If I wanted an acoustic guitar toreally cut through a dense track, I’d go with the THE, but if Iwere looking for a guitar track to sit a little bit more in thebackground, or if the track was pretty open, I might go withthe TS-1 first. Bottom line, every recordist should have atleast one SDC in their mic locker, and the TS-1 is a versatileand excellent sounding mic. If this were your only SDC, you’dbe in great shape. ($499 MSRP; www.chameleonlabs.com) -JB

One more review on page 78>>>

CDBONNIE ‘PRINCE’ BILLY*

BROKEBACK*CALIFONE*

CHIK, CHIK, CHIK*DEATH CAB FOR CUTIE*

HOWE GELB*JIMMIE EAT WORLD

QUASI*SLEATER KINNEY*

PINBACK*LOVE AS LAUGHTER

THE ALUMINUM GROUPTHE GOSSIP*A-FRAMES*

THE SEA & CAKE*TORTOISE*VINYLCAT POWERELLIOT SMITH

GUIDED BY VOICESINTERPOL

LARGE PROFESSORPEDRO THE LION

SOFT BOYSYO LA TENGO

*also mastered to vinyl

MasteringServices:All of these studios

support the Tape Op Community andwould welcome the

opportunity to talk toyou about masteringyour next project

See more mastering studios on page 8 and 87.

76/Tape Op#60/Mastering Services

www.tapeop.comfree subscriptions online!

Please Support Our Advertisers/Tape Op#60/77

Here are some short reviews of a handful of the new releases that we’vebeen enjoying down here at Tape Op headquarters. Many of these artistsare the ones who will be making the cool sounds of tomorrow, so supportthem! -LCVictor Krummenacher The Cock Crows at Sunrise My pal Victoris known as the bassist for Camper Van Beethoven, Monks of Doomand sometimes with Cracker, but here he presents his fifth solo album.

This album, produced by Bay Area mainstay and excellent pedal steelplayer Bruce Kaphan, strikes me as Victor’s finest solo outing. Why? His

voice is more assured than ever, reminding me of an Americana-tinged JohnCale. The playing has a spontaneous, slightly loose (but not sloppy) feel that is

inviting, and in some cases very Band-influenced. It turns out that much of the album wasrecorded live in the studio with few overdubs - ah ha. The sound of this record is superb as well- everything seems to have the right place to sit, even when the mix is busier. The band featuresKaphan, drummer John Hanes, David Immergluck and Tape Op’s buddy, Chris Xefos - as well as ahuge collection of other players. Sessions were tracked at Fantasy Studios. A big hats off to Victorand Bruce for a job well done. (www.victorkrummenacher.com) -LCRobert Forster and Grant McLennan Intermission - The Best Of The Solo Recordings Oneof my favorite experiences was recording the Go-Betweens’ “comeback” album, in 2000, soon afterinterviewing Robert for issue #14. The band had been defunct for 11 years, but these twotremendous songwriters had put out four solo albums each during that time. This collection isculled from those albums, hand picked by Robert and Grant prior to Grant’s untimely passing lastyear. If you’re a Go-Betweens fan like myself I highly recommend finding all the albums, but forthe casual fan this double CD is a great place to start. It’s also fascinating to compare the tracksfrom different albums - like how Robert’s Mick Harvey-produced Danger in the Past material (largeand spacious) differs from the Edwyn Collins-produced Warm Nights tracks (close and darksounding). All in all this is a fine collection from a pair of always-underrated songwriters, one ofwhom is sadly no longer with us. (www.beggars.com) -LCThe Stooges The Weirdness Some 33 years on, the core Stooges (Iggy and the Ashtonbrothers) reunite to record their fourth album. Can people hitting sixty still rock out as dumband primal as ever? Yup, sort of. Steve Albini (issue #10) recorded them (with Mike Watt fillingin on bass and Funhouse sax player Steve MacKay) at his Electrical Audio studios in Chicago.It’s raw, and loose, with basics and most vocals tracked live, yet it’s totally different soundingthan its closest relative, the legendary “off the floor” Funhouse. Albini gets his usual “drumsin the room” sound, and that seems to stay the same through the whole album. The guitarsappear to have the same panning and overdubs on every song. There’s a claustrophobic soundto Iggy’s vocals, like he’s eating the mic while the band is back in the room with the drums. Iguess my beef with the record is the “sameness” that permeates every song. I keep going backto Funhouse, and wondering what’s different. Those tracks have a different kind of sameness(more reverb, more openness to the sound), so maybe it’s just down to the songwriting andthe band’s own dynamics - they don’t really play with the same subtlety that worked on theFunhouse sessions. But shit, there’s also something here that works - the rawness being a betteroption than the slick, commercial punk style recordings (think Blink-182) that could have beenapplied to this to no good end. Mastered at Abbey Road. (www.iggypop.com) -LCScott Bomar Black Snake Moan OST/DVD I thought this was a really great movie on justabout every level, a very soulful character driven story, so check it out if you haven’t yet seenit. Tape Op readers may remember Scott from issue 44 when we traveled to Memphis, Tennesseeto check out the recording scene there. Since that piece was published, Scott did thesoundtrack to Hustle and Flow and now Black Snake Moan, his second close collaboration withdirector Craig Brewer. This DVD is still worth watching even if you saw the movie when it wasin the theatre. There are several short bonus features on the making of the film, including onesolely focused on the soundtrack with lots of great studio footage at Ardent and interviewsegments with Scott. The soundtrack was recorded at Ardent (issue 58) with musicians primarilyfrom Memphis. Jim Dickinson (issue 19) plays keyboards while his sons, Luther and Cody (NorthMississippi All Stars), play guitar and drums on some tracks. The film is dedicated to the lateR.L. Burnside, so it’s only fitting that R.L.’s grandson Cedric plays drums and his adopted son,Kenny Brown, plays guitar on one key track (issue 40 has an interview with Bruce Watson, who’sworked with R.L. and lots of other artists on the Fat Possum label.) Charlie Musselwhite addssome nice atmospheric harmonica, while the Spirit of Memphis Gospel Group lend their voicesto the soundtrack. The list of great musicians from Memphis and the surrounding area just keepsgoing: Jason Freeman, Alvin Youngblood Hart, and Big Jack Johnson all figure prominently intothe movie’s score. In one of the featurettes, director Brewer comments that he and Scott havethree more movies they want to make, in which the music of Memphis is a key element to thefilm. I’m looking forward to seeing and hearing what they do next. -JB

78/Tape Op#60/music Reviews/

Sounds Like DrumsSLD Total 44.1 ReFillMichael Moushon and Glenn Forsythe are Boston-based musicians

with lengthy studio tenures and expertise in development of musicproduction tools. The pair undertook a major endeavor with Sounds LikeDrums, which was initially available as a ReFill for Propellerhead Reason.The audio content is now also formatted for use with Native InstrumentsKONTAKT 2, iZotope iDrum, and Ableton Live as 24-bit samples at either44.1 kHz or 96 kHz rates.

The heart of SLD was the effort to capture as much depth and nuanceas possible from both a classic 1960s Rogers five-piece drum kit and ahigh-end, modern DW kit. Moushon and Forsythe filled over a dozen reelsof Quantegy GP9 analog tape at a Boston studio, recording drummer GregKitto and other local session players. Kitto tracked the Rogers kit with avariety of snare drums, using wood sticks, hot rods, brushes, mallets, andhis bare hands. The kits were captured with a collection of premium mics(Neumann, Royer, AEA, etc.) and preamps (Neve, Telefunken, UniversalAudio, etc.). An additional partner, Randall Robbins, was instrumental indeveloping SLD for KONTAKT 2.

SLD appeals chiefly to rock/pop producers or desktop musicians whowould prefer a live drummer but simply don’t have access or means toaccommodate one. These aren’t dry, isolated samples. All mics capturethe character of the studio’s live room in addition to performance quirksand the characters of the kits themselves. The result is a much moreconvincing “performance” straight out of the box. Forsythe and othersassembled painstaking demos in styles ranging from driving, Beatles-esque pop to hot raga, with impressive results. With velocity mapping ofthirteen layers on the Rogers kit, very authentic sounding performancesare possible, depending upon the time invested.

My mixing and mastering room at The Happy Club is built aroundLogic Pro. Logic users unfamiliar with the process of ReWiring Reasoninto Logic are welcome to email me for a useful tutorial I found onlineand some personal notes. Essentially, Logic requires creation of an AudioInstrument for sending MIDI data to Reason and a pair of Audio Objectsfor stereo playback. Or you can use the Logic/ReWire/Reason templatesincluded with SLD. Default Reason rack configurations are also includedin order to get you programming beats quickly. Users can use Reason’sNN-XT sampler to customize the kits by swapping snares/sticks and“moving” room mics or altering the amount of microphone bleed.

I used SLD to demo new songs for a short tour by my band Ping.Once I had the ReWire process sorted (a personal first), sequencing wasas easy with the ReFill as using my old Steinberg LM-4 bank, the creakyold Alesis HR-16, or Logic’s own UltraBeat; and for rock and roll, itsounded better than any of those. I also saw great results using SLDwhen tracking a guitarist who wasn’t playing well to a click track.

Others may be available, but SLD is the first multisampled drumlibrary I’ve encountered with all samples tracked analog to tape. If you’rereally hunting for artifacts of the analog process, a few can be found.Crank the volume and overcompress an isolated cymbal crash, and maybeyou’ll hear a ghost tap on the snare. I heard some vocal chatter at thetail of one kick drum sample. But given that this package includes over10,000 samples, the attention to detail is pretty staggering. Sounds LikeDrums takes advantage of traditional analog recording methods and putsthem in the hands of both non-traditional desktop musicians and prosalike. I’ll always prefer live drummers, but I’m sure I’ll use SLD for keepertracks before long. ($85 MSRP for SLD Total 44.1, $100 for Total 96, otherpackages available for $20-$350; www.soundslikedrums.com)

–Jeff Elbel, www.marathonrecords.com/ping

www.tapeop.comfree subscriptions online!

Mastering Services/Tape Op#60/79

WaveLab Tucson, Arizona

Why not push the red button?C h i c a g o S t o r e • H o t e l C o n g r e s s

C a f e P o c a C o s aPackage r a t e s a v a i l ab l e

5 2 0 - 6 2 2 - 3 9 4 4wave l abaz@ao l . c om

80/Tape Op#60/Biz Card Ads/Put your ad on this page: http://newsub.tapeop.com/bizcard.html

Our Fantasy Gear Wish Listby Larry Crane, John Baccigaluppi and Andy Hong

82/Tape Op#60/The End Rant

Here’s a list of things that would make our recording lives easier.