Re-mastering at Abbey Road

So noone else spotted what he says about pitch and tape speed?

I think he was just trying to get across that speed and pitch are related without trying to get into too many of the details.  It might be harder for someone to grasp that speed and pitch are inversely related during the recording process - as long as playback is on a machine running at a steady speed.

The idea that simplifying an explanation to the point where the information is no longer correct should not be excused.

The only way to make a complicated issue simpler is to explain it correctly.

Yes, the person learning may have to think about it a few times, but if they have been provided with accurate information they will get there.

Personally I think it's disrespectful to sacrifice accuracy for convenience. It demonstrates to me that the presenter doesn't really care if the audience achieves competency in the subject at hand.




I remember how long it took me to relearn how electrons work in electricity. We are all taught that they flow one way for the first couple years... then if we persisted we are taught that they actually flow the other way.

That practice saves a teacher a few hours of instruction up front and it costs each student a couple years of confusion down the road.

I don't think that is a good system.

It's frustrating to think that a system of explanation would be designed to teach an inaccuracy just because someone supposes that most people will never actually get to the accurate understanding. The process perpetuates the expectation that people can't understand some things by presenting inaccurate and misapplied information until people really are unable to understand how the inaccurate information applies.


This is why I make comment about some of the casually written Cakewalk blogs and I am perplexed and bemused when my comments are countered with the often heard reply "We didn't think people wanted to read a white paper".

It seems like "white paper" is a new slur directed at any presentation that attempts to offer detailed and accurate information about complicated subjects.

The only way to make a complex subject simpler is to offer accurate explanations that are detailed enough to provide all the info that must be considered for understanding to occur.

The student usually has to review the information several times to achieve comprehension, but of course none of that is even possible in the absence of accurate instruction.

Anyways, That's my opinion.

:-)


best regards,
mike

I'm in the education business. There's some good research out there about how long it takes to un-learn something when it is learned the wrong way. It takes at LEAST 4x as long to learn something when you initially learn it the wrong way as it does to just learn it correctly in the first place. There is also some very good research out there that shows when someone learns something the wrong way, they persist in the wrong way even when it demonstrated that they are wrong. That's why I agree that it is vital to teach/learn the right way up front. Teaching has to be clear, unambiguous, and without confusion. Even if it's hard. Since it's even harder or impossible to change later.

The last time I corrected a VIP I decided to adopt a new policy.

Usually I am the only guy really listening, because that's what I was hired to take care of... so sometimes I say things like "hey that sounded great...  you all should here this... can we have play back?"

and then I cross my fingers and hope for the best.


:-)

OK I listened intently and I think he just lost track of his context, admittedly within a very short span of time.

If he had spoken precisely he might say,

"in the analog world if you are running [playback] faster [than it was recorded at] the pitch goes up. If you are running [playback] slower [than it was recorded at] the pitch goes down"

but there is no doubt in my mind that he knew exactly what he meant. He simply confused the context of his explanation and made a mistake.

It's a good example of why everyone deserves a good editor/producer to bounce ideas around with.


The really ironic part is that he could have told any of us of a certain age that it was "Wow and Flutter" and we would know exactly what was meant and quickly appreciate the wonderful implication that the music was locked down to A=443.



Thanks for the link. I'm hooked. :-)


best regards,
mike

There you elite liberals go again - always dissing the common man.
 
I will stick to my opinion regardless of the facts.
 
Sorry for the interruption ... you may now return to your regularly scheduled NPR broadcast.
 
:)

Karyn


I cameacross this today, I think it is fascinating.  (but I'm a nerd...)
 
 
Is it me or does he make a glaringly obvious mistake?  (starting at approx 12mins in)
 
 

He has a British accent (to me) so I believe anything he says.

He put smudges on that one metal record.

Wagner! 


Awesome little video though.

spacealf


I don't think he stated any thing wrong. Talking about old machines and the power supply and matching how they ran (because those machines were still experimental) was what he was mentioning. Later on when he showed how they changed the Studer tape machine to account for the way those old tapes where done, it all made sense to me.

He does get it wrong.  He's talking about recording. He's holding a 60 year old reel of tape recorded under less than ideal conditions as regard stable mains supply. He clearly states that the increased mains voltage could cause the tape machines to run fast which raises the pitch..  WRONG.
 
As for the A80,  he's saying they ripped out the 2 track head and fitted an old full width mono head, then pulled an eq card and replaced it with an old eq card to match the recorder used 60 years ago.

dup

mike_mccue


Hi Rain,
Karyn's point is that the statement was actually made mid way through an explanation about the variances in running speed of the recording machines that the recordings were made on. He was explaining that the old machines had poor speed control compared to the machines they are playing back with today. He was explaining that pitch variance is embedded in the recording and that there will be an effort made to fix the speed variance observed upon playback. Then he abruptly, and temporarily, changed the context of the description from a recording scenario to a playback scenario, but he didn't really introduce or acknowledge his temporary shift in perspective.

He also suggested, but didn't elaborate upon the idea, that after they captured the tape to digital they would analyze the "A"s at every opportunity with the intent of calibrating that to a 443Hz reference in an attempt to conform the entire performance so as to reduce the effects of wow made during the recording process.


I think it is pretty clear the guy lost track of what he was saying and simply said it wrong yet he knows exactly what he meant to say. I think that he would be the very first to agree with Karyn if given the chance.


best regards,
mike

Hi Mike,


I am sure he would too - which is why I made all the assumption that he didn't say what he meant.

bapu


Well, I'm going to destroy any recording or reference I own WRT Abbey Road including those AR drums in Komplete 8. 

Smashing a virtual 60s drum kit doesn't really make you cooler than Keith Moon - you know that, right? ;)


Just so you don't get fooled again...

John Paul Jones plays bass > John Paul Jones is way cool > Bass players are cool.

Therefore, the Bapu is already pretty cool.