"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
No. It's not a room, but a *very* contrived tape repeat with
reverb added to it. This became part of the very distinctive
Bostic R+B sound.

Using a tape delay to feed a reverb plate was common practice in TV in the
'60s and '70s before digital reverb units become the norm.

The track being discussed here, Earl Bostic's recording of Flamingo
was made in 1951, there were no reverb plates then.

And pretty well all of these offer the same effect.

There are countless variations all of which sound different.
You set the delay and the reverb to suit the tempo and also
the instrumentation of the track

Also, you can delay the reverb or reverb the delay. Totally different.

It's not 'contrived' in any way. It's exactly what happens in real life in
some acoustics.

Please listen again:
http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Music/Flamingo.mp3

Can you suggest a room with this acoustic?

Surely you don't think that Bostic's Flamingo was recorded in such
a room? Even if one could be found:-)

The effect (apart from a little leakage vibraphone to alto) is to be
heard only on the saxophone mic. The rest of the rhythm section
is dry, which would not be the case if the room acoustic had been
otherwise.

Cheers
Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Don
Pearce wrote:


It's quite difficult to see how the exterior finish could affect the
sound which is produced not by the metal, but by the air column. Of
course the metal interacts strongly, but all the same...

Well, I'd expect the amplitudes of the displacements of the vibrations
of the metalwork to be much smaller than those of the air in the
column. However the stiffness is also very different. And the shape,
etc, of the instrument presumably determine how effectively it acts as
an 'antenna' to couple the vibrations into the surroundings.

For a thin tube...

Ahem:-) It's a long cone actually, Jim,

Well, to a physicst, a 'cone' is just a tune whose cross-section varies
along the length. :-)

I read the above as "'just a tube whose cross-section varies
along the length" Hope that was correct.

It seems that, to a musical instrument designer. the difference
between a cone and a tube is of great importance. As the
design is based on physics, one would have thought that the
difference would be important to a physicist too:-)

The saxophone designed in 1844 and intended for a specific role,
has not evolved from other instruments, as has the clarinet for
instance, which started life as the "chalumeau" a low pitched
wooden pipe with seven holes.

The clarinet is the only cylindrical bore reed instrument, and
overblows on the 12th and not the octave as with other woodwinds.
It has predominantly odd numbered overtones. The fundamental
is 1 x f , 3 x f, 5 x f, 7 x f, etc.

The Oboe, English Horn, Bassoon, and Saxophone are conical
bore woodwinds. These conical bore reed instruments all overblow
the octave, not 12th, as with the clarinet. They produce all of the
overtones, both odd and even, that is: 1 x f, 2 x f, 3 x f, 4 x f, 5 x f,
etc.

It is the strength of the various overtones in relation to the fundamental
that makes an oboe sound different from a soprano saxophone, an alto
saxophone from from an English horn, etc.

and not very thin either. 10kgs
is a typical weight for a tenor saxophone.

Do not juge the thickness of the brass by the edges of the tone-holes.
These are thinner rings that are soldered on afterwards.

Fair enough. So far as I can recall I've never picked up a saxophone, so
had no idea how heavy they are!

Surprisingly heavy:.)

That does raise the question. Is the thickness for durability, etc, or to
get the desired sound?

Probably for both reasons. Some Chinese made straight soprano
saxophonesare faily lightweight, and have a thin sound.

Many saxophones are bought for marching use, (military bands
and also US high-school marching bands) They even have a lyre
clip on them. The military look after their instruments, and in
the British Army many musicians use their own, for which they
are paid an allowance. But the high school bands, it seems,
give them rough treatment, resulting in dings and dents, and
even take them out in the rain!

Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
No. It's not a room, but a *very* contrived tape repeat with reverb
added to it. This became part of the very distinctive Bostic R+B
sound.

Using a tape delay to feed a reverb plate was common practice in TV in
the '60s and '70s before digital reverb units become the norm.

The track being discussed here, Earl Bostic's recording of Flamingo was
made in 1951, there were no reverb plates then.

Perhaps then you would explained where the 'reverb' came from?

Before plates, the common way was an 'echo room' with speaker and
microphone. But you've stated it was not a room.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


Ahem:-) It's a long cone actually, Jim,

Well, to a physicst, a 'cone' is just a tune whose cross-section
varies along the length. :-)

I read the above as "'just a tube whose cross-section varies along the
length" Hope that was correct.

Yes. Typo.

It seems that, to a musical instrument designer. the difference between
a cone and a tube is of great importance. As the design is based on
physics, one would have thought that the difference would be important
to a physicist too:-)

That may show that you're not a physicist. :-)

The point here is that from the *physics* point of view a 'tube' and a
'cone' can be analysed using the same type of approach, and the phusics of
their behaviours are related. This means you don't have to dream up
entirely 'new' ways to analyse, design, etc every time you encounter a
slightly different object. One of the aims of physics is to have a minimal
set of equations/models/hypotheses/axioms/properties/symmetries that then
cover *everything*.

That doesn't mean that the different details of behaviour aren't exploited.
So although a waveguide and a feedhorn (antenna) are used for different but
related purposes the underlaying physics of them is the same. You just
change the details to suit.

So the differences appear in the applications, not in the physics.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

Also, you can delay the reverb or reverb the delay. Totally different.

Could you explain that. Not clear to me what you mean. Linear processes
usually commute even if not invertable.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
No. It's not a room, but a *very* contrived tape
repeat with reverb added to it. This became part of
the very distinctive Bostic R+B sound.

Using a tape delay to feed a reverb plate was common
practice in TV in the '60s and '70s before digital
reverb units become the norm.

The track being discussed here, Earl Bostic's recording
of Flamingo was made in 1951, there were no reverb
plates then.

Perhaps then you would explained where the 'reverb' came
from?

Before plates, the common way was an 'echo room' with
speaker and microphone. But you've stated it was not a
room.

I doubt that Iain actually knows for sure. He's hardly a credible source
when it comes to recording technique, modern or ancient.

I listened to the Flamingo clip, which is way too short (12 seconds) to
analyze well. The usual standard for posting clips like this is more like
30 seconds.

The most remarkable thing about the Flamingo clip is the timbre of Bostic's
Sax about which there has been some informed writing. The consensus seems to
be that the Sax tone of Earl Bostic was a creation of Earl Bostic, and not
the result of some obscure or advanced recording technique.

I can find nothing credible about actual recording technique that was used.
Others with relevant independent facts are invited to contribute them.

One thing that Iain probably has right is the idea that there was no such
thing as a plate reverb in 1951. The innovation of the plate reverb is
credited to EMT in 1957.

Tape echo is a little harder to pin down. It was first implemented using
ordinary studio tape recorders. One source credits the invention of tape
reverb to Les Paul in 1950. Dedicated hardware for this purpose includes
the Echosonic which was introduced in 1952. I don't think that many people
other than Les Paul himself were using tape delay in 1951.

What I hear (which is dubious because of the flawed sample) on the Flamingo
MP3 is a room that would be the size of a small recording studio or a night
club or smaller. The micing was probably close or medium. The room is
basically harsh, without a lot of absorbtive material in it. So it probably
wasn't a recording studio. I think I can come pretty close to duplicating
this kind of reverb including the harshness at church with fairly close
micing - the room is that bad.

Dave's suggestion that if any artificial reverb was used at all, an echo
chamber was used seems like the most reasonble speculation. The use of echo
chambers dates back to the innovation of so-called electric recordings - no
later than the middle 1920s according to the credible sources that I have
found.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Iain
Churches wrote:

Also, you can delay the reverb or reverb the delay.
Totally different.

Could you explain that. Not clear to me what you mean.

Iain's statement seems hard to make sense of if you understand how reverb is
simulated.

Linear processes usually commute even if not invertable.

I think that Iain is making a distinction between simple delay (one time
step and no feedback of delayed information) with common implementations of
reverb which can involve multiple time delays and the addition of some
feedback of delayed information.

The earliest artificial tape reverb involved only one delay because tape
machines of the day had only one playback head, but could have easily
involved feeding back delayed information from the playback head to the
record head.

The number of playback heads used is an important variable. It comes closer
to simulating what rooms do than using just a single head.

The first dedicated tape reverb machine that I ever saw had multiple
playback heads, maybe 5 or 6. This probably came a lot closer to simulating
what real world reverberent rooms do.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
No. It's not a room, but a *very* contrived tape repeat with reverb
added to it. This became part of the very distinctive Bostic R+B
sound.

Using a tape delay to feed a reverb plate was common practice in TV in
the '60s and '70s before digital reverb units become the norm.

The track being discussed here, Earl Bostic's recording of Flamingo was
made in 1951, there were no reverb plates then.

Perhaps then you would explained where the 'reverb' came from?

I did just that, in an earlier post, in which I described the effect
as "contrived", I wrote:

+++ No. It's not a room, but a *very* contrived tape repeat with
reverb added to it. This became part of the very distinctive
Bostic R+B sound. The record was recorded in early 1950s,
and the effect made, it seems, with an Ampex 300 and a
Hammond spring reverb Proper plate reverbs like the
EMT 140 didn't appear until later. +++

Before plates, the common way was an 'echo room' with speaker and
microphone. But you've stated it was not a room.

No, not a room. The way this effect (something quite new at the time)
was put together is well documented because later when Arthur Bannister
was planning a recording with Lord Rockingham's X1 for Decca, he
contacted the engineer, then retired, at King Records and discussed
the technique at length with him.



Cheers
Iain




--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


Ahem:-) It's a long cone actually, Jim,

Well, to a physicst, a 'cone' is just a tune whose cross-section
varies along the length. :-)

It seems that, to a musical instrument designer. the difference between
a cone and a tube is of great importance. As the design is based on
physics, one would have thought that the difference would be important
to a physicist too:-)

That may show that you're not a physicist. :-)

Indeed. Something for which I give thanks daily:-))

So, are you saying, Jim, that the bore (conical or tubular) is
of no consequence in this instance of musical instrument design?

Cheers
Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

Also, you can delay the reverb or reverb the delay. Totally different.

Could you explain that. Not clear to me what you mean. Linear processes
usually commute even if not invertable.

The principles are the same if you use an old Ferrograph and a
Grampian S1 or a Bricasti. It is helpful to demonstrate the
routing with separate stand-alone units so that students
can physically connect them as building blocks.

These are the two basic delay/reverb approaches on which
are based a very large number of variants.

In the first you use a delay, which you do not bring back to
the return signal loop, but use to feed the reverb, the output
of which is then brought back to the mix. The result is the
original dry sound, followed by a pause, but no repeat,
then the reverb.

In the second, you use a delay which you bring back,
as a repeat of the original signal. You then add reverb
to this which you also bring back to the mix. The result
is the original dry sound, followed by a repeat with
reverb on it.

Despite Dave's claim that "pretty well
all of these offer the same effect" in actual fact the
number of variation is only limited by one's
imagination.

The first interesting variant that comes to mind
is created by using two reverbs of different lengths,
one for the main signal and one for the delay, and
returning the reverb of the original signal and that
of the reverb panned to opposite sides.

You can also create multiple delays/reverbs known
as flutters, which can be panned across the stereo
soundstage. A good and obvious example, often heard,
is flutter tambourine, where the the original signal was
panned left, the early repeat/reverb brought back centre,
and subsequent repeats lengthened and attenuated
progressively while being brought back panned further
and further right. This give the impression of a tambourine
struck on the left and then passing across the sound stage
and disappearing into the distance far right.

Everyone who listens to records has probably heard this
kind of thing, although they may not have recognised it,
or stoppped to think how it was done.

These are effects that recording personnel must be
able to identify and create and quickly, and form an
important part of the recording arts training syllabus
with interesting workshops finding the answer to the
question: "How was that done?"

Modern digital processors such as the ubiquitous
Lexicon PCM96, popular in well-equipped studio
control rooms, and used by most teaching facilities,
incorporate a large number of very good sounding
presets which may well be exactly what you are looking
for. There are also User Registers in which can store
your own settings, (Earl Bostic for example:-) and even
Favourites from which your most used effects can be
quickly selected


Iain

..