By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 01:59 pm:
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 01:59 pm: |
Picking up from HELP 1....there is concern that the SITSOM CD may have a problem relating to quality. In all fairness to it's producers, this has yet to be determined.I should add that this is not an entirely unusual situation in the business. It does happen from time to time. For the present I'm concerned with the possibility of a problem. Let the debate continue....
| By Livonia Ken (136.2.1.153) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 02:47 pm: |
When I first heard it, my general assessment was that it sounded a little better than most pop CDs being released today (from a musical performance, arrangement, and general aesthetic standpoint, it was orders of magnitude better, but I'm just talking about sonics, here). Then I saw the film and heard what it could have sounded like, and that was not good enough, anymore. In other words, I'm pretty much in agreement with Kevin.
It hardly consitutes a train wreck by today's (low) standards, but it is a little disappointing that they could probably have done a fairly simple 2-channel downmix of the film soundtrack transferred flat and sounded better than what we got.
It would be interesting if they released it in some multi-channel capable format such as SACD or DVD-Audio since they must already have the beginings of a good multi-channel mix from the film soundtrack.
I had the same reaction to the recent re-release of the film "The Last Waltz". The film soundtrack in theaters and on the DVD was far superior to the sound on the deluxe 4-CD set which was overprocessed. I didn't get why the brand spanking new 5.1 film mix would sound so much more dynamic and natural than the brand spanking new 2-channel stereo mix done by largely the same people. It sort of points to the mastering stage, IMHO.
Regards,
Ken
| By Bradburger (172.179.139.250) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 06:44 pm: |
Hi all
It's interesting that Ed and others here should mention the sound of the SITSOM CD compared to the Film Soundtrack.
When I got broadband a few months ago I took the opportunity to download the SITSOM trailer. One of the things that impressed me apart from the sections of the film was the sound. I thought that it was really great and captured the atmosphere of those performances.
It was almost as if I was there.
I particularly thought "Cooljerk", "Heatwave" and "Brokenhearted" sounded awesome so was really looking forward to the CD. Anyway when I finally got my copy of the CD I have to say I was slightly disappointed as it didn't sound quite as good as what I had heard in the trailer.
I initially thought this because I was tired at the time I just wasn't hearing it properly. Also, as the visual element of the trailer was missing, I thought maybe this could have been a factor.
In the end I put it down to being just me.
But when I listened to it again later it still sounded as if something was missing when compared to the soundtrack. Now don't get me wrong it doesn't sound awful and when compared to your standard pop recording of today it's a masterpiece!
But it definitely lacked the 'something' that was present on the tracks in the trailer.
One thing that hit me straight away on the CD was that Bob Babbitt's Bass on "Cooljerk" sounded quite different to how it did on the trailer. It lacked that lovely deep fat round sound and almost sounded like a different bass was used. On the trailer it was just like the original!
Despite these minor gripes I still enjoy the CD (especially "Bernadette" and "You Keep Me Hanging" On") and very much look forward to seeing the film and hopefully the Funks here in the UK.
Back over to the experts!
Cheers
Paul
| By Ed Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 06:58 pm: |
Hello Paul and All:
Further analysis of the SISOM CD confirms my earlier subjective evaluation regarding audio quality.
After seeing the comments made by Livonia Ken I had a bit of free time this afternoon and went about an technical analysis of one track of the SISOM CD, this being "COOL JERK", Track 11. This track was chosen as I have somewhat intimate knowledge of the original recording as I recorded the session at Golden World and later mixed the track for Ollie McLaughlin at United Sound after Danny Dallas finsihed the vocal overdubs.
Later, in the 1980's I did a stereo mix for Ollie for a release of material he was doing for Solid Smoke Records before his death. I had a digital copy of that mix. The plot of that mix is presented below:
I will refrain from making mix evaluations as these can be very subjective. Suffice it to say that part of my concern is the lack of "FEEL" in the mix that was in the original version or the film. I was also there for the performance at the Royal Oak Theatre and involved in session there with Kooster as well. The excitement and dynamics are wonderfully captured in the SISOM film. They are there on the session masters. The film version is a great mix in my subjective analysis.
The technical analysis of this track however, is VERY objective however. The track was directly digitally transferred and preserved as a broadcast .wav file for analysis. As may be observed the waveform exhibits numerous digital "OVERS" and clipping. (Back in the 1610/1630 format days plants would not replicate program material like this. Thank God.) The program exhibits extremely limited dynamic range as well, further confirming my previous comments in the earlier HELP thread. Further analysis shows the use of "Harmonic Generation Processing" either digitally or via Aphex. See waveform plot below.
A level histogram further graphically illustrates the butchering of this track.
Now to the digital overs...
The plot above is a zoom of the "OVER" at 52:47.06. The horizontal line 3 tick marks above -3 on the left vertical scale is full 16 bits. I have chosen this as but one example. There are numerous others in this track alone.
This scientifically confirms the "auditory evidence" present in the listening and confirms my previous posts regarding this situation and the serious problems present in the industry today and addressed in the "Audio Media" article referenced in the previous thread.
Other comments are solicited.
Pax,
Ed Wolfrum
| By Steve L (209.100.86.4) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 07:08 pm: |
I don't think I can top Ed Wolfrum's post...
I've had the CD since it came out & the sound from the movie is far superior. For example, on the CD "You Really Got A Hold On Me" sounds kinda flat(a little like karaoke), & I thought the problem was with Me'Shell's vocal phrasing since it is not even close to Smokey's. On the CD, I don't get the point of the re-make & it's a track to skip. ON THE OTHER HAND - When I heard the song in the theater, the vocal & overall sound was very dymamic! You could hear the power of the music. The instruments & the vocals had the natural echo of the studio room.
On the more powerful/forceful performances (both songs by Joan Osborne) I didn't notice the difference between the CD & film very much.
Like Ken said, the sonic quality of the CD isn't bad, but the movie is so much better!
-Steve
| By Larry (216.23.183.2) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 07:23 pm: |
Ed,
I understand the first graphic waveforms. Looks like the material was mastered as loud as possible with a hard limiter. First thing to go out the window: DyNaMiCs. btw, correct me if I'm wrong on anything I say - i'm not the Pro you are.
Now, can you explain the Histogram?
Also, by Digital Overs you were just showing the signals approaching and exceeding 0db, and that this is a no-no in the Digital realm??
thx.
| By Bradburger (172.183.51.219) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 07:46 pm: |
Thanks Ed for that explanation and the waveforms pics.
I'll read this again when my head is clearer and keep it for future reference. But I see what you mean.
It's really good that you and all the other engineers who participated in these classic recordings can share their experience and knowledge on this great forum.
Have you and the likes of Bob, Mike, Russ and Ralph ever thought of (maybe working together!) on a book about the art of audio engineering?
Just a thought!
Steve, as for YRGAHOM that was another one I liked on the trailer.
Just got to make sure I get a DVD for when the SITSOM version is released.
Cheers
Paul
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 08:01 pm: |
So what I'm reading here suggests that something is amiss with the CD.
Nice graphics Ed. You were busy today. And you're right...what better song for you to analyze. Well lets see what other comments may come.
| By HW (68.37.217.106) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 11:31 pm: |
First I've seen this thread.
I'm pretty floored. I'll stand by the soundtrack release. To compare the movie sound in a surround digital theater to a stereo CD for your home or car is a little unfair - it seems. I can take criticism in the spirit of being further enlightened, so let's see where this goes.
| By Millie (68.40.209.129) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 12:29 am: |
I'm no audio techie, so all I can say is that I love the soundtrack and have been listening to it daily...over and over! You guys are a little too analytical here...just listen to the CD as fans, and not technicians. Enjoy it. Good work, HW.
| By MEL&THEN SOME (195.219.7.110) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 03:25 am: |
Millie,
I agree with you there
way over my head all that Technical wizardry.
Mel.
| By Jay (167.167.44.218) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 05:11 am: |
Good Topic Guys!
I thought it was just me!
But I am VERY glad I got it.
The studio store sold out in 2 days.
One of my fellow engineers here at the studio thought that the 7 minute Windows Media Promo sounded better than his CD!!
And you know what? It had more life AND the vocals were more (properly) out front.
The bugaboo can be the translation between 3 front speakers to 2...maybe.
In theory the "Phantom" center should be the same
quality and intensity as the "hard center speaker"
But it isn't because you are usually not sitting there all the time. So the new mix needs to keep that in mind. hmm....
OK, Lets blame it on ProTools...yeah thats it.
SloTools is always a fun target :-)
I could only imagine that the mix was skewed toward showcasing the musicians and NOT the singers.
It is TOTALLY feasable that a proper modern mix could put Joan Osborn's "Broken Hearted" on the radio ....but the CD mix ain't it.
I also had a problem with the packaging.
It seems that the Title of the CD is at the bottom of the jewel case and in a CD rack as was in our Universal Studio Store, you cannot see the title!... Marketing at its finest?
| By Ed Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 10:56 am: |
Hello Guys,
Sue and I are not alone on our observations. Mark Logsdon a studio drummer friend says the same thing. The FILM MUSIC SOUND, including the data reduced two channel trailers BLOWS THE CD AWAY.
I played the CD for Artie Field last night after our Friday night dinner. His comments which are subjective and I wrote down for the forum are:
1. The CD is "LIFELESS" and lacks dynamic range.
2. The bass on the original session (Motown Sessions lacks fullness and does not SOUND LIKE
JAMERSON at all.
3. The mixes, all of them, do not have the character of the "Detroit Sound."
4. The mixes lack a sense of real perspective, by example, the piano is pulled back in "Cool Jerk" and there is little sense of cohesiveness in the perspective. The background vocals lack perspective definition.
5. The bass drum sounds NOTHING like a bass drum. It sounds good in the film.
To pin all of this on the surround mix is technically without foundation. It is easier to do a "reproducable" 2 channel stereo mix that a 5 channel surround mix. Jay can confirm that.
The technical reason for the lack of dynamics is presented in the plots above. The CD was mastered to be LOUD. Please review the comments made on this sad fact of the industry from others in the Audio Media Magazine quote in the previous HELP thread.
Playing the trailer thru my front room K-Horns, and you have heard this system Harry and know of their accuracy, it is an exciting sonic experience. Playing the CD on the same system simply "HURTS." This has been the case on any quality reproduction system I have auditioned it on.
When compared to previous Motown CD releases it is harsh and lacks both the subjective feel and the excitment. The mix isn't even close to a "MOTOWN" sounding mix. When the audio on a data reduced video file blows away a full bandwidth, 16 bit PCM file there are serious problems.
Ed Wolfrum
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 11:21 am: |
Well Ed makes a good case. Artie's comments are most certainly valid considering his experience in the business. I also respect any opinion from Miliie. She certainly has been around this business long enough to know what she is talking about.So what's the answer? From a technical perspective, the producers of the CD have to know that this is the proverbial " Lions Den " by virtue of the engineering talent represented here. Naturally it is our desire to see that the music is as accurately reproduced as possible and furthermore the possibilty exists that the special " Detroit " feel is missing in the CD. I sure don't want to create headaches for Harry and John. We owe these guys a lot and their efforts to bring this to the public is appreciated. However, we who were there owe them the value of the collective years of our experience and to do anything less would be a disfavor to these talented guys. Let's see where this debate goes.
| By Susan Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 12:29 pm: |
Sorry Millie.
This is another womans opinion, but I thinks it sounds BAD. It is an insult to way the guys play.
I can't stand listening to it, which is a shame, because I would like too. I won't let Ed play it, it SOUNDS SO BAD.
Susan Wolfrum
| By Jay (24.55.22.104) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 02:43 pm: |
In the film sound biz, we have fought to get the preview trailer sound levels under control.
In the last two years with the insight and direction of Ioan Allen at Dolby Labs, TASA an industry trade organization has come up with a "loudness" standard and an Leq meter that that tests weighted loudness-over-time data.
They have sucessfully been able to bring the overall level down about 3 dB broadband in the last 3 years.
Now, every trailer that goes through the MPAA rating system (G through R etc...) goes through this "Test" to be certified to run. The major studios have ALL agreed because it presents a level playing field.
Before this, the theatre owners would just turn the Cinema Sound Processor down and THEN the movie that followed would play TOO LOW.
We were actually mixing trailers at different levels to be able to "match" other studios trailers in "average" level! It was sheer lunacy!
Because the standard calls for level-over-time there are certain amounts of REALLY LOUD segments that do peek through. That said, it is MUCH better than anything we had before and YES it still leaves room for lots of level-sculpting tools.
The weapons of dynamic disaster today are:
* Peak Limiters
* Multiband Compressors
* The dreaded "Normallizing" function found in all DAWs
We had a TV show go out the other day and the mixer told me that she was concerned that it did not play as loud as "Law and Order".
So I said, When you turned it up a bit , how did it sound?
She said: It was great.
I said: Good, the levels are all over the place on TV and all of us are used to riding the gain on our TVs anyway.
But this level thing is an epidemic and it's wrong and it renders the finest audio equipment to be virtually useless and a waste of money.
How is it that the Tonight show sounded better in mono with an 18 to 30 piece band 15 years ago than it does today?
Its just a pile of compressed crap now.
The Pop CDs we use for source material on films are quite comical in the that, on some of them, the VU or Peak meter does NOT move! It is seemingly locked in one position!
The Digital Cinema SMPTE DC28 Standards group had to discuss Sound Levels for Digital Cinema. The 24bit (as most of us are using now) topic came up. Because the noise floor was so much lower, could we increase the headroom above 85 dBSPL (it is currently 20 dB.. netting 105 per channel)
Although we all agreed that an orchestra could use more headroom, we also knew that the abuse of the new-found level would be disastrous and probably bordered on being illegal! So it stayed the same....so far....despite Tom Holman.
The record biz to police itself?? Ha Ha
Look what a mess they are in right now because they did not deal with the DOWNLOAD/MP3 thing.
Their is no unity in that competitive world.
Until their is, sound squashing will continue to be the modus operandi.
But I think we all know that....
It dosn't have to be this way.
Hey Ed, maybe on "Funk Brothers II" they'll get it right ?!?
| By Sue (205.188.209.38) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 03:25 pm: |
>
Oh come on Ed, that's going too far to say the bass on "Bernadette" doesn't sound like Jamerson. You weaken your other arguments when you say stuff like that.
I'm backing Millie on this, hearing the guys on their own CD always makes me smile, and the Jamerson tracks are thrilling to hear.
I have to wonder about the piling on, first about the sound at a party at the Roostertail that everybody enjoyed for free -- free food, Funk Bros. music etc., and a CD made with love by guys who have been fighting to get these guys recognition for years. In all these years, who else did this? And I know if it wasn't for Harry Weinger none of the Motown people would have been invited to the Roostertail, he personally made sure that they were.
It's easier to criticize than it is to fight 10 years to make something like this...
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 03:35 pm: |
Sue,
Please don't misunderstand Ed. He is not critisizing. He is, however, extremely concerned about the quality of the product. How could he not be? He is an " old school " engineer. And it is because Allen and the guys have worked so hard on this that we feel it has to be dead solid perfect. After all, didn't the Brothers deliver perfection in the studio. If for no other reason we owe them this much.
| By Sue (205.188.209.38) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 03:42 pm: |
Ralph,
I understand he's coming at this from a sound engineer perspective. But add to that the ranting about the Roostertail sound -- even after it was repeatedly pointed out that that was an emergency situation after the sound equipment did not show up...
I think Ed would probably disagree with you -- he is criticizing. And criticism is fine, but this is going a bit overboard. Listen to the "Bernadette" track and tell me that doesn't sound like Jamerson.
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 04:45 pm: |
OK Sue,
I understand your point.And I suppose it was a little unfair of Ed regarding the Roostertail thing, considering what was taking place. However, you have to really understand sound engineers to see where they're coming from. I don't consider myself to be even in the neighborhood of a Russ Terrana, Ed Wolfrum, Bob Ohlsson or Mike McLean. But I know how they think. They're a different breed Sue. I think that is evident by the various postings on the forum in the past months. And these guys are the cream of the crop, so if something is bothering them I take note.
I'm sure it is way to early in this discussion to make any concrete conclusions on the true quality of the CD. However, I think it is a worthwhile debate and depending on how much is initially invested in the release of the CD, if it is in fact determined that something is amiss, I wonder about the possibility of a re-mix. As I mentioned earlier it is something that is done from time to time and when you consider what is riding here it may be the logical alternative.
I have not heard the CD yet. I was waiting to see the movie first, so I have held off buying it. I'm sure Jamerson sounds like Jamerson, but has his unique sound been compromised? Remember Bob Ohlsson had pointed out that nothing was usually done to his sound as it came directly into the board during sessions. It should sound like that but maybe doesn't? At any rate I have decided to not buy the CD at this time. I'm only here to moderate a discussion on this and I will try and stay neutral. Or, as neutral as can be expected considerng the content of the debate.
Please try and understand Sue that Ed Wolfrum and his breed have always been passionate about the quality of their work. Let us not forget that it was the engineers who were an intregal part of what made the " Detroit Sound " so successful.
| By Millie (68.40.209.129) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 04:49 pm: |
I can't believe what I'm hearing here. First of all, in response to Sue Wolfrum's posting, you're certainly entitled to disagree with me...it's still a free country, however, although I'm not tech savvy, I know good music when I hear it, and this is damn good music! I'm not listening to it the same way Ed would, or even Ralph would. I'm listening to it the I would, and I like it. This forum is for all of us to discuss the music...and the music is everything. We all have our different opinions, which is a good thing, and the forum encourages that. Whew...I'm glad that's off my chest!!!
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 04:57 pm: |
Mille,
As I have said so many times in the past. This is a FORUM. Glad your chest feels better.
| By larry (12.141.160.25) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 05:17 pm: |
BERNADETTE from SITSOM
I'm glad someone else brought it up first.
Why on earth was the original bass line NOT used? Instead a (alt) track was used that doesn't do Jamerson justice - IMHO. The chromatic lines are a bit week, plus the sound of the bass is so prevalent in volume and (possibly) processing that I was Bewildered both by the choice in 'takes' and the production of it. I'm guessing the volume is so you can hear it in the car with windows open, but, the original take is far superior in musicality.
I also understand and agree with Sue that on the human level, the FUNKS are finally getting their due, maybe their final public one; that the Movie and Soundtrack MADE IT out is the point.
At the same time, HOW the Funks are presented to the world is of big importance to Ed and many others. From a technical (read: sonically pleasurable) POV, I agree, things have fallen short. The Roostertail incident is inexcusable. It was everyone's final hurrah Sue. Some people can excuse mediocrity, but, not the Perfectionists who bring the art to its zenith.
In all fairness to the CD, comparing a LIVE recording to what took place in the snakepit is tuff for me to understand. Ed would agree Live is a different animal altogether.
| By Bradburger (172.179.80.132) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 08:26 pm: |
Hi all
First up, I have no problems with the sound of "Bernadette" & "You Keep Me Hanging On". It was the live recordings that I felt disappointed with when compared to how I remembered them on the 7 min trailer on my PC.
Secondly, I forgot to say this in my earlier post but as for YRGAHOM sounding a "Little like a Karaoke" this is a bit harsh IMO. But of course Steve is entitled to his! I still love the CD (I never once considered returning it) and it's an important part of the whole SITSOM thing.
Sue, I can understand and see your point as a lover of the Funks and their music. But I can also see Ed's point as a professional sound engineer and someone who worked with these guys in their "Golden Era" and was also involved with the film.
He has critised the CD but has taken the trouble to show his findings in the form of those waveforms and plots. To most of us these mean didly squat and will only appeal of to the more 'techy'of us. But they were posted as eviendence to his argument.
Larry, as for Bernadette. It doesn't sound like an alternate to me. I assumed this was the 'used' take from the original 8-track master. I found this fascinating to listen to as at last you could hear the Funks in all their glory.
On that note, R Dean Taylor said in the "The Motown Story" documentary that Jamerson's bass "did have a sound - it kind of wobbled a bit you know, was kind of messed up and distorted and so on" and he went on to say that "the engineers did clean it up but it was still there".
When I heard Bernadette & YKMHO on the CD I could see what he meant. This is not so apparent on the original Stereo mixes. Could this be why it sounds like a different take?
Maybe HW could add to this?
Ok enough rambling.
Cheers
Paul
| By Sue (64.12.97.7) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 08:53 pm: |
Larry --
To clarify again -- the situation at the Roostertail was an emergency. The sound crew that was contracted to appear did not show, so along with appearing at the film screening up in Birmingham, and dealing with the emotional trauma of Johnny Griffith's death that morning, Allan S. was on the phone all day frantically trying to line an emergency fill-in sound crew and equipment in.
The guys from Wonderland Music agreed to come out and punt.
Had this been the sound crew that was supposed to be there, then they'd deserve whatever criticism they got. But this was a last-minute substitution and not the optimal guys, but the guys who were willing to show up on a Sunday at the last minute.
What most of us were saying was: Surely in this situation outrage could be tempered by compassion.
Saying a song sounded "like karaoke" goes beyond criticism and is mean-spirited.
| By Sue (64.12.97.7) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 08:55 pm: |
And I'll attest that Millie is a professional who's heard LOTS of great music, first-hand, in the first row and on record -- if she says something sounds good I check it out.
| By thecount (64.53.143.173) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 09:30 pm: |
I cant agree or disagree on the cd,but the movie kicks,as does the sound.I went to see it again just to enjoy the funks as if it were in the days of their time,and that is with a bottle of "NIGHT TRAIN" wine snuck in under my jacket,and that is that,nothing bad can be said ,but have not yet heard th cd.A simular example to what I see is going on here is I've seen and have the movie and DVD,LOOKING FOR AN ECHO,with Kenny Vance and the Plantotones,all sound is fantastic in both dvd and in the theater.I have the sound track on cd "LOOKING FOR AN ECHO" and there is some dissapointments there.I said some,not all.Are those that are critisizing the SITSOM cd unhappy with all the tracks or some? I dont want to add any unleaded fuel to this fire here,so i'll stick with the leaded gas here and say I'am totally stoked and love the movie,and will buy the cd tomorrow,and wont be dissapointed no matter how it sounds,because i will have in my hands a product of everyone who made the funks happen again and their well deserved spotlight,and those here on this site that we speak with everyday thats part of the whole thing is what makes it a treasure chest of our friends here.I find it always hard to put my fellings into words,but I'am thrilled to the thought of what everyone all over the world is having and going to have in their theaters,"OUR SOUND AND ROOTS" I'ts DETROIT man,no matter how you look at it.OKAY,I'll shut the f--- up.love to all,"COUNT"
| By Ed Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 09:30 pm: |
Hello Larry and All,
Actually, I prefer live recording to studio recording. Live recordings in a good acoustic venue should sound BETTER than studio recordings with todays technology. This is because, if you know what you are doing, you use real acoustic space rather than artificial "created" space to manufacture perspective.
Additionally, musicians seem to be more responsive to each other and the audience in a real acoustic environment. The ensemble seems to tighten up and become even more synergistic.
That is part of my problem with the CD. This sense of acoustic perspective and synergy, is strongly present in the film, even in the 2 channel, data reduced, trailer audio, but is totally missing from the CD. Additionally, the dynamics are totally restricted. To use Sue, my wife's words, "it sounds like is was put in a box. I agree!
Now, to address Sue and Milly's comments. The subjective comments about the CD were not mine, they were Artie Fields comments, however I concur with most of them. Artie was not commenting on Jamerson's playing, the comment was directed to his SOUND. Which is usually presented "full, dynamic and round", in this mix this was not the case. Artie can speak with authority about this as he has used James Jamerson on hundreds of sessions.
Perhaps, if I get time next week I will do a color spectrogram plot of the original " 10 note BASS PICK UP" in Bernadette (from the Hitsville Box Set CD) and we can objectively examine it for fundemental and harmonic content, dynamics other processing to the content on the SITSOM project.
I have never been known for being silent about technical problems of any kind, and as I get older I become even more verbose. I call it as I HEAR it. And what I hear is NOT GOOD on this project.
It is because of my concern and outright LOVE for AUDIO, the MUSIC and my FRIENDS of over 35 years the FUNK BROTHERS and all of the other, Detroit Sound audio people that Artie, Jay, Larry, Ralph, Clay and I make these comments. We want this to be a CD of historic and musical significance. To many good and talented people have worked too hard for it to be anything less.
That is also the reason for my posting regarding the POOR sound at the Roostertail. You will note that I and numerous other respected and talented audio professionals offered to help in that incident to solve the problem. We were ALL, rather crudely, turned away by the personel from the sound company. If that crew knew what they were doing there would have been NO problem. All of the gear was state of the art. There is no reason for the guys to suffer poor sound in their own home town.
Alan Slutsky has and his entire crew have worked tirelessly, sacrificed much and deserve the credit for making this project a reality for the FUNKS. This is precisely the reason for all of these postings.
If the sum total of audio knowlege and time by myself and other audio professionals on the forum that have gone into the postings regarding this matter were to be billed at a standard audio consulting rate, I doubt whether the budget of the SISOM project could support it. This is A LABOR OF LOVE because we do CARE. If it is not accepted under those terms I will cease the WASTE OF TIME.
Ed Wolfrum
| By M.McLeanTech (64.236.243.31) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 09:50 pm: |
There is a theatre down on Hollywood Blvd. that is running S.I.T.S.O.M., and it is equipped with the new Texas Instruments digital IC cell that takes the place of the film in the projector "hot hole" (film gate). This cell is driven with high resolution digital video downloaded from a satalite to a hard disk drive located in the projection booth.
Now I can kill two birds with one stone. I have never seen the movie, or this new cinema technology. I think I am going to go down tomorrow and check them both out.
Then, if I can get Larry to loan me his sound track CD, I will be all prepped to start shooting off my big mouth. I don't want to be left out!
By the way, that piece I posted for Ed about topology, and nerds, was my way of taking this:
"Ed, I think it would be a good idea if we only refered to people that worked in my Technical Engineering Department as "The Nerd Brothers." We have "The Funk Brothers" for the band, The Nerd Brothers" for the Technical Shop fellows, and now we need a name for the recording engineers. Perhaps you can think of a good name. I leave this in your hands."
And saying it in a proposterous and interesting way in the interest of hee-haw. It was all tongue in cheek. While it is one of my pet peeves about the mis-use of the work topology, my intention was to make everybody burst out laughing by making such a big, over-blown deal out of such a small matter.
I took Ed's serious and attentive response to be his humorous way of continuing on with the "skit" by playing the "straght man."
Then I sobered up, and began to wonder if my comidy act had resulted in the "chirping of crickets" for an audiance response. Oh well...
Lets see: Since the mixing engineers were always adding echo, and the Motown echo was always considered to be a very important element in the success of the Motown Sound, perhaps we could call the recording engineers the Chambers Brothers.
Come on, Ed. You can come up with something better then that. I'm just trying to inspire you with that little ditty.
Mike McLean
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 10:13 pm: |
I have a request. This debate could get very interesting.( Mike...good to see you here. I will await with interest your analysis of the alledged problem.) Let's as of NOW drop any conversation about the Roostertail. That happened...it's over. I'm not sure where this thread is leading, but it could become exceedingly interesting. At any rate we will all be treated to an exercise in sound analysis. As members of the forum you have expressed much interest in the various processes of the business. Welcome to QUALITY CONTROL.
| By M.McLeanTech (64.236.243.31) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 10:18 pm: |
On another thread, StuBass says that the Regent theatre is near Pink's, which is at Melrose and La Brea. That's the place I was talking about, and my comments were based on an ad in the paper that did not include the address of the theatre.
I guess the Regent is not on Hollywood Blvd. after all. Sorry about that.
Mike McLean
| By Ed Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 10:41 pm: |
Hello Mike,
I am looking forward to your comments on both the film and the new technology as well as the CD.
I was quite impressed with the theatre sound at the Paladium Theatre here. It was a release print I assume, but in good condition. It was very well mixed and Jamie did a wonderful job with the dialog under the changing conditions he was working under. The music mix on the film was great as well.
Your straight man,
Ed
P.S. Russ, Ralph, Bob Clay and I will work on a name for the mixers. What about the guys like Bob Dennis, Jimmy Siracuse, Les Cooley and I who were working both above and under the board? AC/DC?
| By larry (12.141.160.25) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 10:42 pm: |
Mike: let's get together tomorrow if you have time. I'll loan you my SITSOM CD. I'm free after 3pm. I'd love to see the film again at The Regent.
Bradburger: it's an alt. take on Bernadette. The CD says so, but, I knew it before I read it. You can easily hear it: on the CD all the downbeats in the verses are (2) 8th notes. The real take used 'dotted quarters. Real obvious.
Ed and Sue: I have deep respect for both of you and your opinions.
Ralph: I won't stray from the topic and will try to let the Pro's do the talking. 
| By Bradburger (172.186.224.245) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 10:54 pm: |
Larry thanks for that info.
Just checked the SITSOM CD booklet and your right of course. Missed that when I first got the CD. As YKMH on was the original backing track I assumed so was Bernadette.
Having not studied the original much I hadn't noticed. And thanks for the 8th notes and dotted quarters info. But not being a musician it means about as much to me as Ed's waveforms do to a non techy!
Cheers
Paul
| By M.McLeanTech (64.236.243.31) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 10:56 pm: |
Ed, How about calling them Chamber Nerds? (As in chamber maids.)
Larry, Lets have dinner tomorrow about 7 PM and then catch the 9:45 show. Please call me tomorrow morning, or tonight after 9 PM. I stopped at McRed's Thursday night, but it was a different band playing (which I rather liked.)
By the way everybody, How about this?
The Regent Theatre is on La Brea. One block over, and running parallel to La Brea is Detroit Street. You can't beat that!
Mike McLean
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 11:51 pm: |
Larry,
Your opinion regarding the CD is important also. Feel free to contibute here. In fact I would like it if any who have the CD post an opinion.
| By larry (12.141.160.25) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:02 am: |
Hey Paul,
Listen to Bernadette this way.
Original track: EVERY downbeat on all verse bars, the bass hits ONE relatively long note, then a line up to the octave.
SITSOM track: every downbeat the bass is playing 2 quick notes, then up.
Mike, you're on.
Ralph, thank you.
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.241) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 01:14 am: |
Ed,
Here we go again. I have come up with the perfect name for the Motown mixers. Sadly, it would only resonate if you had been able to capture the supervisory position over the recording engineers, as did Lawrence Horn.
Assuming that you then succeeded in having a vast influance over their approach to not only their work, but their outlook on life, the resulting elete group would be called (drum roll): The Righteous Brothers.
Thanks for your warm words, and for being a good sport about my spaced out posting about topology.
Mike McLean
| By Oy Vey (63.203.178.106) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 01:18 am: |
ED, If half of the stuff you said was true, you would still be a bullshitter! Sour Grapes Baby! If you had worked on the FunkBrothers CD then it would be Great right? The Funk Brothers don't even remember you being at all those sessions you go around saying you were at!!! Let these men have their day without your Negative Spin...... This was a labor of Love so back off!!
No one other than the producers of this project did anything to bring this story to the surface, and give these guys the money and the exposure they deserve!!
God Bless the Funk Brothers
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.241) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 03:02 am: |
Refering to (on this thread):
Ed Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 06:58 am:
My comments:
Four graphic charts are presented:
1. Before (a mix with decent dymanics.)
2. After (the same mix as rereleased on a recient CD.)
3. A "histogram" of 2 above.
4. A computer captured stored oscillogram of a some program material (modulation) from 2 above.
Specific observations:
The difference between 1 and 2 is clearly supportive of the claim that the version 2 is dymanicly greatly altered from version 1. I would expect 2 to sound very different from 1.
Of course, when forming such a conclusion, the jury is totally dependent on the assumption that these are the same musical selection, and even better, the same source (master tape.) I didn't read the "fine print" like a lawyer would, but I assume that Ed would never present any measurements that are not subject to the full disipline of the scientific method.
These concerns having been stated, I agree with Ed that the modulation in 2 is grossly distorted (different from) the modulation in 1. If this is indeed typical of the practices of today, regarding the repackaging of old material, then I fully support, in principal, Ed's conclusions.
The "Motown Sound," is supposed to be heavenly. At least that's what most on this forum say. If this is so, such modification is, without doubt, a major desication.
Of course, that is how I felt when they recorded it in the first place! Compared to high quality recording, Motown's product was "jacked out of shape" (God Bless Danny Dallis) "every which way but loose" (God Bless Clint Eastwood) in the first place.
Still, I think it is valid to view a Van Gogh painting as a masterpiece, even if his contemporys loathed it, as long as the cheap reproduction in my coffee table book is an accurate reproduction. I don't want some smart ass in the dark room fooling around with the brightness, contrast, color, and tint.
I take Ed's point to be that we have just such a pool pee artist swimming in the process.
Regarding 3, the histogram, at first I didn't understand what this is about. After I looked at it for a couple of moments, it was clear to me what it means.
Many loudness measurments were made, every so often (much less then one second apart) throughout the tune.
This graph shows loudness on the vertical scale, and how many samples occured at that loudness, on the horizontal scale. A vertical line on this chart would result in a VU meter reading, as you listening to the tune, that would not move.
A beautiful mix, which makes use of various levels of loudness to achieve dramatic effects, and which retains the natural variations of level which are normal in a live performance, would look more like a broad mountain range, or to be more specific, an old broads prone side view, with it's pancake like sagging out into a less erect formation. This reflects the wide veriety of loudness levels present throughout the tune.
The graph 3 appears to me to be beautifully consistant with graph 2.
I'm with you Ed! After all, I married an 86 year old woman.
Graph 4 is something else again. This specific example shows a quite moderate amount of instanious peak clipping which, in my judgement would be virtually inaudible.
From a purely technical point of view, the facts shown in graph 4, relate to the points presented in the first three graphs in about the same way that is implied if one were to say: "They weren't fair when they dropped the atomic bomb on Heroshima, Japan, because they cheated and used a new kind of radar to protect the B-29 bomber that made the drop."
Sadly, the comments supporting graph 4 are overblown. The conclusions are simply not supported.
I feel that Ed is on the right track here, but perhaps he should have sent only the first three graphs. It is going to be a real riot to see what the movie and the CD sound like.
You know the old saying: Opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one. This is going to be my ultimate opportunity to make a "pig's breakfast" of shooting my mouth off!
This is the supreme showdown between the music lovers, and the sound lovers.
Remember "Love Letters" sung by Ketty Lester? A person who loves that record could care less about the "naturalness" of the recording. It is utterly fantastic music!
Wonderful music can exist without great sound.
Great sound is on very thin ice without wonderful music!!!!!!!!!!!
This moment of wisdom in no way degrades Ed's points: The original mix that had the "Motown Sound" should be re-released with the original qualities, and not dorked all over Hell's half acres!
A perfect example is what happened when the licence to make Lowenbrau beer was sold to the Miller Brewing Company, back in the late 60's.
In the fifties and early sixties, the Lowenbrau that was imported from Munich, Germany was heavenly, to say the least. You can get a rough idea of what it was like by drinking a bottle of St. Pauly Girl today.
Suddenly, Lowenbrau was sold in a bottle that looked exactly like the old imported bottle, but the contents tasted like panther piss. When you read the fine print, it said: brewed by the Miller Brewing Company in U.S.A.
Here we go again with another "spin."
Today, there is a political movement being born in which people are beginning to become aware of what this "spin" business is about. Twenty years from now, I expect Americans to be like the Germans were after WW2: NO MORE BULLSHIT!!!!!!
There is no substitute for honest, objective, accurate facts, which are carefully considered by responsible people, and presented to the working public by dedicated, responsible reporters.
That was how Edward R. Murrow brought down Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Pornography is not love.
Bullshit is not science.
Doubletalk is not meaning.
Bad sound is not good sound.
Good music is good music.
Mike McLean
| By SteveS (68.41.251.33) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 05:20 am: |
Very interesting to read the comments by Ed and Mike, and see the graphic summary of the CD vs. movie. However, like Mike, I don't see graph 4 as particularly damning. When I saw the movie again last night (third time in a theatre) I paid particularly close attention to the sound, keeping in mind the discussion on this thread. I noticed a few things that may be relevant, although I am not an audio professional, and will gladly defer to (and greatly appreciate) the expertise of Mike, Ed and others on this thread:
1. In the movie, the soundtrack mix appears to be closely correlated to the visual. This is particularly evident in Ain't no Mountain, as the vibes and drumsticks on rim are momentarily boosted during respective closeup shots. Another example - brass section in Brokenhearted. After each closeup, the mix abruptly returns to "normal" when the camera pans away. You hear something similar after Jack Ashford's little seminar on Ain't to Proud to Beg - Jack's tambourine is quite loud when he first brings it in but it's dropped back after a few seconds. Perhaps this explains the need for the different dynamic range schemes in the 2 versions - more dynamic range was required to accomodate instrumental "features" (and also interplay with the narration)
2. In the movie there is a short segment of the isolated bass in Bernadette. On the CD, you can hear the bass breaking up, which I thought might be why that track was an alternate take (it even me reconsider Carol Kaye's claims, although I don't want to stir that up again). However, the bass in the movie version sounds full and beautiful, which undoubtedly was the intent of the CD version as well. The difference is puzzling.
| By soulie dave uk (62.254.64.5) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 06:09 am: |
I know nothing about recording, but after trying to digest all this and seeing the movie I do think the CD is a bit flat in places.
Ed's charts above could be my heart rate as I sat in awe of the MIGHTY FUNKS on the screen in front of me. SDUK.
| By Sue (152.163.188.68) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 09:38 am: |
Mike,
Charts 1 and 2 above are NOT based on the same master tape. Chart 1 is the original studio version of "Cool Jerk" by the Capitols. Chart 2 is the live version by Bootsy Collins, from the soundtrack CD.
How is that comparable?
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 10:43 am: |
Well this debate seems to be moving along rather nicely. Remember, lets keep it civil.
We have a common interest in this.
OY VEY...I did not appreciate your comments to Ed. He most certainly was involved in the Detroit music scene in all aspects. I can prove it because I was there. During the course of this debate I will not allow any flaming of anyone. We are trying to determine if there is, or is not, a problem.
Mike your initial analysis is most interesting. I look forward to what you have to say once you have seen the movie and listened to the CD.
Sue...I believe Ed was trying to demonstrate the difference between an open dynamic mix and one that was squashed to the max. Identical master tapes have nothing to do with solving a problem here.
| By Sue (64.12.97.7) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 10:53 am: |
Ralph --
It was Mike who wrote, of charts 1 and 2: "Of course, when forming such a conclusion, the jury is totally dependent on the assumption that these are the same musical selection, and even better, the same source (master tape.)"
It's obviously not the same master tape. So, what is Mike's conclusion now?
| By Chauncey (63.188.33.51) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 10:56 am: |
Yea, what is it Mike?
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 10:58 am: |
Sue,
In reality, it makes no difference. The problem is that the SITSOM CD is showing problems from a technical perspective.That is the issue.
| By thecount (64.53.143.173) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:02 am: |
Sue,I know you will at lease answer my question.If you scroll up to my post.Not being part of the CLICK,things do get ignored.Thanx SUE(Susie Darling)ps,just e-mail me if you would like.
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:08 am: |
CLOSING THIS THREAD....MOVING TO ....HELP 3...........THIS THEREAD IS WAY TO LONG...CLOSED....CLOSED....GO TO HELP 3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
| By Sue (64.12.97.7) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:15 am: |
Count, mon cher -- I reread your post and I still don't see a question to me -- maybe I stumbled over the Night Train. Pose your question again ...
Ralph,
If you're going to be objective, as you stated above -- saying you weren't going to buy the CD and listen to it -- then you really can't say things like the CD "is showing problems from a technical perspective." You're basing that on Ed's judgment.
If you want to discount my opinion and Millie's, do you discount SteveS's as well, who is a physicist and musician? If only sound engineers are allowed to comment on the sound of a recording here then perhaps you should make a thread for sound engineers only.
But also, if you're going to make a subjective call on this CD, then listen to the CD and truly make a subjective judgment of your own.
There are many music professionals on this forum, not just sound engineers.