Used UA 2-610 on every track, who said muddy?

[joel hamilton]

I just posted a song in the "listen to my stuff" forum that I used not only the same pre, but the same mic for almost everything, except the drums...

check it out.....

[stubenbaines]

Yeah, I've read that murky comment too about the 610 and I found it suspect. If that pre is supposed to be the same design used in the console from LA's Western Studios, then wouldn't all of the great recordings that came out of that studio suffer from the "murky" problem. As someone mentioned, if Pet Sounds is considered murky, then it's a good murky.

[I'm Painting Again]

Tonedrone said he gained a cohesiveness wich may be further proof of a pre having a
cumulative effect on tracks imparting it's own EQ curve and spatial characteristics..

I think we were all saying that the cumulative effect does exist and that it's a GOOD thing.

I know..I'm saying its not always a good thing but can be certainly..it can go either way or not matter one way or the other all depending on the specific situation and circuts in question..

[restless-young-romantic]

Love our 2-610 we just got, Larry .C seal of approval didnt hurt : )

Were looking at some Sytek, Neve or Sage for cleaner option next.

[I'm Painting Again]

Yeah, I've read that murky comment too about the 610 and I found it suspect. If that pre is supposed to be the same design used in the console from LA's Western Studios, then wouldn't all of the great recordings that came out of that studio suffer from the "murky" problem. As someone mentioned, if Pet Sounds is considered murky, then it's a good murky.

I've definitely noticed there is a bunch of people who debase the new UA company and its products..

[Coco]

I don't know why people shit on UA stuff. I really like it. The 2108's are absolutely killer, my 2192 converter sounds great to me. I like my 2-1176 as well. I have never heard any old Rev B, Rev c, Rev XYZ??????? whatever. If it aint old, it aint cool I guess because it has new cinemag transformer in it instead of a UTC and it is quieter than an original and it doesn't have any old crapped out capacitors in it. It must be garbage.

[Barry Jive]

As someone mentioned, if Pet Sounds is considered murky, then it's a good murky.

I don't know if Pet Sounds is a great example for this discussion. Didn't they record that on a 4-track, bouncing all the instruments to one track and leaving 3 for vocals? So at most we're talking about 7 tracks going at once. 7 marvelously recorded tracks, but the "Stack up" phenomenon wouldn't apply as much.

I encourage everyone to post some recordings done with just one preamp, UA or otherwise.

[the brill bedroom]

I just got an LA-610- my first good mic pre, really. i don't know about build up, but the thing sounds flippin' great. Definitely a step up from my Joe Meek British Channel. Would it be wrong to go back and recut everything I've recorded over the last 6 months now that I just finished my album?

[stubenbaines]

I don't know if Pet Sounds is a great example for this discussion. Didn't they record that on a 4-track, bouncing all the instruments to one track and leaving 3 for vocals? So at most we're talking about 7 tracks going at once. 7 marvelously recorded tracks, but the "Stack up" phenomenon wouldn't apply as much.

I encourage everyone to post some recordings done with just one preamp, UA or otherwise.

It may be 7 tracks used, but I'd imagine that more than one channel was going into each track when they recorded. Let's say bass and drums went to track 1, then they could have 3 strips of 610 style pres devoted to that one track. Assuming multiple things went on each track you could have a fair amount of 610 preamp build up. (I'm just making those numbers up. I don't know what the actual track assignments were used on Pet Sounds).

Dennis

[Barry Jive]

I don't know if Pet Sounds is a great example for this discussion. Didn't they record that on a 4-track, bouncing all the instruments to one track and leaving 3 for vocals? So at most we're talking about 7 tracks going at once. 7 marvelously recorded tracks, but the "Stack up" phenomenon wouldn't apply as much.

I encourage everyone to post some recordings done with just one preamp, UA or otherwise.

It may be 7 tracks used, but I'd imagine that more than one channel was going into each track when they recorded. Let's say bass and drums went to track 1, then they could have 3 strips of 610 style pres devoted to that one track. Assuming multiple things went on each track you could have a fair amount of 610 preamp build up. (I'm just making those numbers up. I don't know what the actual track assignments were used on Pet Sounds).

Dennis

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm sure we have a resident Beach Boys freak who can fill us in on the exact details.

[red cross]

The backing tracks on Pet Sounds were usually recorded on 4-track, mixed and then bounced to mono on an 8-track machine, leaving 7 spare tracks for vocals. Thoso old consoles at Western / Gold Star didn't really have alot of inputs. I remember reading an interview with Larry Levine when he described having to share two or three microphones into a single mic input, in order to accomodate the large amount of musicians on Spector / Beach Boys dates. Here's the link: http://www.goldstarrecordingstudios.com/news.htm

[tsw]

I did a record a couple years ago, literally tracking every single overdub with an Aphex 107 into a PRO VLA to ADAT (gasp!). The tracks literally mixed themselves, it was no work at all to get the tracks to sit together in the mix.

What about mic choice? Did you use the same mic for every overdub?

This is an awesome thread, by the way. It feels to me like kind of a core TapeOp discussion, a good example of why I love the magazine and the whole community around it...

[mertmo]

What about mic choice? Did you use the same mic for every overdub?

No. But the selection was not terribly varied. Basically it was as follows:
- U87 on every lead vocal. (matched the singer's voice beautifully)
- TLM 103 on steel string acoustic
- U87 on nylon string acoustic
- AKG 414 BULS, or 414 TLII on all electric guitar tracks, 414 for fatter sounds, 414 TLII for chimier sounds.

70% of the drum tracks were done way earlier than the rest, before I had a PRO VLA or the studio space that we made the rest of the album in. I played those tracks and they were recorded in a spare bedroom with, most likely, the 107 on kick and snare, and mackie preamps on the rest, which was rack tom, floor tom, hi hat, close miced crash, close miced ride. Compressor of choice at that time was a stock 3630!

And so that all this babbling is not for no reason, the album in question is called "Everything Good" by Jason Daniello. You can hear the tracks I'm sure at his website, jasondaniello.com, or at CDBaby. I am really proud of this record, it's the best work I had done by leaps and bounds at that point, the first thing I did that really sounded like a "record". Of course, I can hear engineering mistakes all over it like overcompression and over EQing, etc., but still I love the record so much. It was a real labor of love for Jason and I, we had a magical time making it and you can really hear that in the final product, it just oozes love and enthusiasm. Ahhh, good times.
So the cat's out of the bag. My real name is Ryan Martino...

More of my 2 cents regarding the UA 610:

I have read several times, including from Joel on this very forum, that the new design of the 610 does not sound just like the old one. The old one is described as being not as soft sounding at all, more edgy or something...
Be that as it may, the new stuff sounds great I think.


For the record, I was exaggerating slightly earlier when I claimed that EVERY overdub on Jason's record was the 107/VLA chain. There is one song on which every overdub is the UA610, stock tube, right when I first bought it. That song is "tiny pill." Another song is the 610 on everything except the vocal, which is the 107/VLA. That song is the title track, "everything good."


I must agree, discussions like this are what make tapeop the coolest place in the world to geek out about recording. YAY!

[weatherbox]

The 2-610 gets a bad rap. Don't really know why. I haven't tried tons of great pres in great rooms with great mics, but if anyone blamed a 2610 for damaging the real-world outcome of a recording I'd have to think they were crazy. I had one and sold it to help finance the purchase of a 60's Gibson ES, and now miss it, had a definite character to it and as I record right to digital, I liked having a pre around that could do those slightly woolier tones. Lots of people seem to think though that *all* it does are furry, distorted signals - I dunno. Mine did start to get fuzzy faster than other stuff I've used... but all I had to do was reduce the incoming signal to fix it up. I'm interested in getting another big, round sounding unit in the not-distant future, and would certainly consider another one. The EQ and impedance selectors were pretty handy. It is my understanding that UA designs have changed many times and that new and old really don't sound all that alike. That said, good sound is good sound, and I really liked the 2610 on bass and vox. Wish I'd tried it on overheads.

[trodden]

all i know is that the cumulative effect of my Soundtracs pres is A LOT better than the cumulative effect of my previous mackie pres. and the cumulative effect of the api's along with the cumulative effect of my soundtracs pres is a nicer cumulative effect than i've had before.

cumulatively yours,
Trodden