Beatles track sheet 1967

[Mark]

The rotating magnetic field principle, though commonly credited to Nikola Tesla in 1882 or thereabouts, was employed by scientists such as Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell in the 1820s. Tesla, however, exploited the principle to design a unique two-phase induction motor in 1883. Michael von Dolivo-Dobrowlsky invented the first modern three-phase "cage-rotor" in 1890. Introduction of the motor from 1888 onwards initiated what is known as the Second Industrial Revolution, making possible the efficient generation and long distance distribution of electrical energy using the alternating current transmission system, also of Tesla's invention (1888). The first successful commercial three phase generation and long distance transmission system was designed by Almerian Decker at Mill Creek No. 1 in Redlands California.

[Jeff White]

From March 23rd of 2004



As far as syncing two four track machines, it was first done for the Friday, Feb 10th 1967 session. This was the evening that the orchestra was added to "A Day In The Life". Here is what Ken Townsend has to say in the Lewisohn book (page 96):

"George Martin came up to me that morning and said to me 'Oh Ken, I've got a poser for you. I want to run two four-track tape machines together this evening. I know it's never been done before, can you do it?' So I went away and came up with a method whereby we fed a 50 cycle tone from the track of one machine then raised its voltage to drive the capstan motor of the second, thus running the two in sync. Like all these things, the ideas either work first time or not at all. This one worked first time. At the session we ran the Beatles rhythm track on one machine, put an orchestral track on the second machine, ran it back did it again, and again, and again until we had four orchestral recordings. The only problem arose sometime later when George and I were doing a mix with two different machines. One of them was sluggish in starting up and we couldn't get the damn things in sync. George got quite annoyed with me actually."

Jeff

[soundguy]

they didnt invent the alternating current motor until 1968.

dave

It was around long before '68.

yeah, no kidding, you missed my sarcasm...

the film industry had been using the equivalent of capstan sync with projectors and dubbbers for a LONG time. Of course lockup took a while and it was archiac but it worked. Go watch a "talkie" from the 50's, sync didnt happen because of sprockets, it just made it consistent to edit. There was also double system crystal sync which could have been made to work providing you had the will to give up a whole track for the pilot tone and go through the nonsense of resolving two machines simultaneously. That would have been pretty cutting edge for the day but it probably could have been pulled off. Capstan sync was likely good enough for the average length of a beatles song, which were not generally 10 minutes long.

Its amazing amazing amazing who people chose to respect on the internet.

dave

[Fletcher]

the film industry had been using the equivalent of capstan sync with projectors and dubbbers for a LONG time. Of course lockup took a while and it was archiac but it worked.

Film dubbers were linked mechanically [and initially syncronized by matching the frame numbers next to the sprocket holes]... and Studer didn't start using DC motors in their machines until the first solid state A-80 RC's rolled from the factory. The AC motors of the J-37 would not permit the machines to be locked via Time Code with "tach pulse" reference... so, in order to "hand lock them" you would have to be at E-X-A-C-T-L-Y the same point on the two reels with the "start" [play] buttons linked to work from a single source and the "startup capacitors" [the capacitors that shot the initial charge to the motor to get them going] would have to be very precisely matched [and they would need to be running from the exact same power source which would make "crystal sync" unnecessary].

Using my father's words... "smart man wouldn't do it and a lazy man wouldn't do it".

Peace.

[Derrick]

yeah, no kidding, you missed my sarcasm...

He he... yep.

[soundguy]

It would just be nice if people wouldnt pretend they know things they dont. Its ok not to know things. Your post obviously reeks of someone with zero experience or zero retention, take your pick. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten the audience on what type of frame numbers are present on mag stock? That would be good for a laugh. Film dubbers are synchronized by the motors and you line up all the reels with a big x to match the two frame on the picture or wherever you want to put your single frame of tone, ultimately doesnt matter. If you have a four or eight gang dubbber, roll it forward, throw it into reverse, put it back into play then stop it and run it reverse to the head, you'll see how far out of sync all the reels are, there's nothing mechanical about the lockup on any magnesync that I have ever used. So far as I know, its capstan sync or something totally primitive like it. Frame numbers on mag stock, thats a good one...

Any ac motor that is powered with electricity can by "sorta" synched via the frequency of the AC that comes out of the wall. Someone figured this out long before SMPTE was even an idea in anyones head.

Synching tape decks like this is obviously primitive by todays standards, but for a 3 minute song, its not the end of the world. There's a billion other things to worry about in the process that anyone that has ever resolved crystal sync surely knows about, the reel tension based on the weight of the reels is not the same from the beginning to the end of the reel, so your machine does not record at the *exact* speed from the head to the tail of the reel. This surely must have been one of the major considerations when someone came up with the idea of switching from an AC capstan to a DC capstan, with the DC capstan you had a better chance I guess of a more consistent capstan speed as the weight changed. Thats my guess at least, Im not pretending to be an expert about any off this. Anyhow, if you were smart and you desired to synch to decks via the capstan you'd probably be smart to record whatever material you wanted to synch towards the middle of the reels so the weight distribution was sort of similar and obviously you'dd want to set up both decks so the transport tensions were as similar as functionally possible.

Set ups like that are by no means precise as we would expect in a frame accurate SMPTE system today but to suggest that it couldnt or didnt happen has a history of people who did it laughing out loud. I am not one of them but synching motors via AC was hardly anything new in the late 60's and to suggest it wasnt possible is absurd. You dont need frame accurate synch for rock and roll, if the piece is short enough and the two machines are within spec enough and you are good enough it can be done. When things slip enough, thats when you edit in the new part. Really not a biggie.

If you used crystal synch, you obviously wouldnt go through ANY of that nonsense (duh) because the two mahcines would be running at speed after they had been resolved.

Please keep in mind that all of this would be a ridiculous pain in the ass but pain in the ass and impossible are two different things entirely. mice and men...

Either way, it happened. You dont have to be smart or lazy to solve problems, just innovative.

dave