Didn't Mercury Rev Record on Film?

general questions, comments and ideas about recording, audio, music, etc.
awolski
buyin' gear
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:57 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Didn't Mercury Rev Record on Film?

Post by awolski » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:05 pm

I absolutely love "Boces". A modern major label rock album that starts with a 9 minute + song...all right! I loved those first 2 albums, but then they lost the guitars. I like Deserter's Songs OK, and it's of course very innovative and such, but I wish they hadn't gone so far away from the psychedelic guitar spazz thing.

User avatar
Roman Sokal
buyin' gear
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 10:29 pm
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Didn't Mercury Rev Record on Film?

Post by Roman Sokal » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:19 pm

the new/upcoming album is somewhat of a mix between boces an deserter's songs...you'll love it!

choke3d
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Didn't Mercury Rev Record on Film?

Post by choke3d » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:57 pm

When is the new record due? I assume it is also w/ Friddman? I absolutely love every one of their records - I thought All is Dream totaly stands up with the rest of their catalog - great playing, great songs. The new one sounds interesting, as I definitely do miss the psychedelic aspects from the first two.

awolski
buyin' gear
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:57 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Didn't Mercury Rev Record on Film?

Post by awolski » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:59 pm

I'm psyched. hah. Actually they are one of those bands that I still run out and buy their new albums no matter what even if I think I'll like it or not. But yeah, more thunder would be a great thing.

japmn
suffering 'studio suck'
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:53 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Didn't Mercury Rev Record on Film?

Post by japmn » Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:03 am

I checked in with my film buff guru on this one.
you can or could get 35mm (roughly 1") film completely covered with oxide
and it was used to do post mixes for film.
the idea being that when properly aligned, it would stay in sync.
the film guy said he has only seen mono head stacks but does not doubt the exixtance of stereo.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... 1" mono!!!!!
this sounds great except for 1 thing.
the speed that film is pulled through seems a little slow to me.
it doesn't seem to even be 15 ips.
much less 30.
am i wrong?

User avatar
vibrationlander
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:34 am
Location: madison, wi
Contact:

Re: Didn't Mercury Rev Record on Film?

Post by vibrationlander » Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:49 am

The stuff is called mag stock (for magnetic stock) and was used to sync sound to picture during editing of motion pictures. Essentially, it is magnetic tape which has been backed with 35mm (or 16mm) film -- but, there is no image associated with magstock.
The audio from the production set was recorded on a Nagra, etc. and then brought back to the post house, where the audio tape was transferred (or resolved) to the magstock. That in turn, was put onto a Moviola or Steenbeck editor and locked-in with the picture. Most of these editing machines would have multiple audio paths for multi-channel playback during editing. Eventually, the film is mixed from all of those various elements into an audio master, which is then burned as an optical audio track (or mag-striped) to be printed along with negative to positive prints for distribution.
For those who had asked, the speed of playback is the same as for 35mm film -- (at least here in the US) which is 24 frames/second. and for 35mm (using standard 4 perforations) there are 16 frames in 1 foot of magstock.
To the best of my knowledge, there can be 6 track stripes across the width of the stock. I'm sure many other configurations have been tried since the dawn of sound in film.

goldenechos
gettin' sounds
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Didn't Mercury Rev Record on Film?

Post by goldenechos » Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:38 am

vibrationlander wrote:The stuff is called mag stock (for magnetic stock) and was used to sync sound to picture during editing of motion pictures.
THANX for the explanation!

tony echos

hulahalau
gettin' sounds
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 7:41 pm

Re: Didn't Mercury Rev Record on Film?

Post by hulahalau » Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:40 pm

vibrationlander wrote:The stuff is called mag stock (for magnetic stock) and was used to sync sound to picture during editing of motion pictures. Essentially, it is magnetic tape which has been backed with 35mm (or 16mm) film -- but, there is no image associated with magstock.
The audio from the production set was recorded on a Nagra, etc. and then brought back to the post house, where the audio tape was transferred (or resolved) to the magstock. That in turn, was put onto a Moviola or Steenbeck editor and locked-in with the picture. Most of these editing machines would have multiple audio paths for multi-channel playback during editing. Eventually, the film is mixed from all of those various elements into an audio master, which is then burned as an optical audio track (or mag-striped) to be printed along with negative to positive prints for distribution.
For those who had asked, the speed of playback is the same as for 35mm film -- (at least here in the US) which is 24 frames/second. and for 35mm (using standard 4 perforations) there are 16 frames in 1 foot of magstock.
To the best of my knowledge, there can be 6 track stripes across the width of the stock. I'm sure many other configurations have been tried since the dawn of sound in film.
This info is accurate for film, but not the whole story. 35 mm magnetic stock was also used in special recorders developed by Bob Fine of Mercury Living Presence (and I believe the same recorders were also used somewhat later by Bert Whyte at Everest Records. I do not recall the film speed, but I believe it was close to 15 ips; I would search for articles on "Mercury Living Presence." Stereophile Magazine had several in-depth articles on the re-issue of MLP on CD. As I recall, 35 mm never achieved the hoped-for level of audiophile quality becasue of non-linearties introduced by the fact that the sprockets allowed a bit of play as it pulled the film stock through the machine, unlike a capstan.

If you like classical music, I would suggest picking up a number of Mercury Living Presence CDs. Even though they were transferred in the mid 1990s before the adent of 20 and 24 bit converters, the sound is amazing.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests