Motown Direct Amplifier-inspired Preamp?

[untune]

I really doubt a stepped attenuator could have been described as a "trimmer".

Of course, I just meant more in principle, the possibility of it being a variable resistance in the NFB loop

 

[untune]

You raise an interesting point. At the moment we don't even have a through output so the guitarist can plug into an amp or are we expecting them to listen to foldback headphones or control room monitors?

Cheers

Ian

I think a through output is necessary at the least; from what I can tell on the original there was a switch that changed between monitor speaker and the phones system, the toggle can be seen just behind the silver mesh on the left where I'm guessing the MC-30 power amp was mounted. I'm away from home until Monday so I can't check my notes unfortunately

 

[abbey road d enfer]

dry: as it is directly from the guitar, wet: treated with any effects; e.g. I would not be able to play on a song that requires crunch or fuzzy sound or any other effect, listening to my sound as it comes out of the pickups. so i would record the clean sound to treat it later with reamp or whatever but i would like to hear something that is at least similar to the final result While plsying.

OK, got it!

edit: this for the @TheJames needs, not for the Motown inspired stuff

Indeed!

 

[jacomart]

You raise an interesting point. At the moment we don't even have a through output so the guitarist can plug into an amp or are we expecting them to listen to foldback headphones or control room monitors?

Cheers

Ian

In Motown the guys were monitoring via a McIntosh amp connected somehow to the multi DI (a mix of the 5 outputs? But I really wouldn't like to hear all the signals at the same level in the monitors and probably feeling different from the final mix). I also have another doubt: the “famous” trimmer was before or after the adjustment that gave the reading on the instrument? Probably it was before (also because they revealed that the meter was across rhe output) so they had a preset for the single coils, one for the humbuckers and even one for TheJames guitars? (ok, that's a joke)

Cheers
JM

Addendum: Today things have changed a bit compared to those years, then they recorded live, playing all together, today the monitoring would probably come directly from the control room to headphones.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

In Motown the guys were monitoring via a McIntosh amp connected somehow to the multi DI (a mix of the 5 outputs? But I really wouldn't like to hear all the signals at the same level in the monitors and probably feeling different from the final mix).

The big knobs were for the players to set their own mix, if I read correctly.

I also have another doubt: the “famous” trimmer was before or after the adjustment that gave the reading on the instrument?

Again IIReadC, the trimmer was before the big knob, and controlled the level of teh signal feeding the console.

Probably it was before (also because they revealed that the meter was across rhe output) so they had a preset for the single coils, one for the humbuckers and even one for TheJames guitars? (ok, that's a joke)

I think SC vs. humbuckers is not as significant as how and what the players are playing.
IIReadC, they ended up using the same players with the same instruments playing the same type of part. The exceptions were the channel for "acoustic" guitar and that for bass.

Addendum: Today things have changed a bit compared to those years, then they recorded live, playing all together, today the monitoring would probably come directly from the control room to headphones.

Many studios today have personal monitor systems that allow the SE to concentrate on his job while the musicians struggle to understand the system.

 

[TheJames]

So what I'm ultimately interested in is pretty divergent from the Motown piece. I just thought the idea of getting a clean guitar DI into the DAW was a common goal which is why I stepped in. I understand that my other goals are above and beyond what the Motown box does.

I see what I want in three blocks:

Block 1 is guitar input to DAW with a split to feed guitar world.

Block 2 is DAW to guitar world.

Block 3 would be guitar distribution fed from either Block 1 or 2 that would feed 1 or more amps, flip polarity, mute, etc.

Anyway...Looking at this:

http://cranesong.com/Volts to dBu to VU Comparison.pdf
And realizing that for some guitars the output is ridiculously hot, for my block 1, perhaps what I want is pretty much just a unity gain guitar input to line-level impedance converter? That seems like something that could be done without too much fuss.

 

[jacomart]

The big knobs were for the players to set their own mix, if I read correctly.

From post #1:
From Ken Sands, who joined Motown in 1967:

“...There was a VU meter on each input, and a guitar's input would be adjusted at the loudest note to peak zero on the VU, providing maximum headroom. That line‑level output would be patched directly into the tape recorder — there was no mixing path — and this was how we worked with the guitars, bass and, later on, a Clavinet and the Fender Rhodes.”

I therefore suppose that the mix was not in real time, that each instrument went to a recording track and that the mix was then carried out later. Then the "Peak to Zero" was used to get the maximum headroom on the tape recorder.

Again IIReadC, the trimmer was before the big knob, and controlled the level of teh signal feeding the console.

I agree for trimmer position but, as above, the output feed was to the tape recorder and, if I have not misunderstood, that trimmer was only available by removing the big knob, so it seems to be a fixed preset (hidden to musicians ) rather than a recording level setup.

I think SC vs. humbuckers is not as significant as how and what the players are playing.
IIReadC, they ended up using the same players with the same instruments playing the same type of part. The exceptions were the channel for "acoustic" guitar and that for bass.

Quite right! Each guy adjusted the knob to reach the peak to zero to his most loudest notes.

Cheers
JM

 

[jacomart]

So what I'm ultimately interested in is pretty divergent from the Motown piece. I just thought the idea of getting a clean guitar DI into the DAW was a common goal which is why I stepped in. I understand that my other goals are above and beyond what the Motown box does.

I see what I want in three blocks:

Block 1 is guitar input to DAW with a split to feed guitar world.

Block 2 is DAW to guitar world.

Block 3 would be guitar distribution fed from either Block 1 or 2 that would feed 1 or more amps, flip polarity, mute, etc.

Anyway...Looking at this:

http://cranesong.com/Volts to dBu to VU Comparison.pdf
And realizing that for some guitars the output is ridiculously hot, for my block 1, perhaps what I want is pretty much just a unity gain guitar input to line-level impedance converter? That seems like something that could be done without too much fuss.

You could simply use an audio interface with more inputs (and outputs) and, with its matrix, direct the guitar signal where you want.

Cheers
JM

 

[btown2009]

Strapped with a bypass switch, no buffer.

No, it had no meter bypass, meter was always on output.

 

[btown2009]

I think a through output is necessary at the least; from what I can tell on the original there was a switch that changed between monitor speaker and the phones system, the toggle can be seen just behind the silver mesh on the left where I'm guessing the MC-30 power amp was mounted. I'm away from home until Monday so I can't check my notes unfortunately

You’re talking about the toggle between the monitor cabinet and the headphone system, the mixed output could be sent to either.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Quite right! Each guy adjusted the knob to reach the peak to zero to his most loudest notes.

I have a different understanding. The trimmers were largely "set and forget". The musicians used their instruments controls (and their fingers) to set the peak level.

From Ken Sands, who joined Motown in 1967:

“...There was a VU meter on each input, and a guitar's input would be adjusted at the loudest note to peak zero on the VU, providing maximum headroom. That line‑level output would be patched directly into the tape recorder — there was no mixing path — and this was how we worked with the guitars, bass and, later on, a Clavinet and the Fender Rhodes.”

Mmm... That may have been the case after 1967, but running separate tracks for bass and 3 guitars on a 8-track machine seems dubious. I don't doubt they went to separate console inputs.

 

[olhsson]

I should jump in here. For 8 track, the guitars were feeding an Altec mixer where they were mixed to track 5. The bass was split out to a compressor and fed to track 8. The whole room was hearing the guitars and bass from the Altec studio monitor under the mixer. The musicians were creating the balance. The direct sound of guitarists and bass players listening to a monitor rather than an amp makes a greater difference than one would expect. Typically, only the drummers and the organ player in the iso room wore headphones.

 

[jacomart]

So everything seems clearer (and “normal”), apart from one thing: “the musicians created the balance” means that no one in the control room was adjusting the mix levels?

Cheers
JM

 

[TheJames]

So everything seems clearer (and “normal”), apart from one thing: “the musicians created the balance” means that no one in the control room was adjusting the mix levels?

Cheers
JM

I don't think that's what was said...

The players created their own mix balance in the live room. The engineers created the balance of guitars and printed to track 5, and sent bass separately to track 8. The musicians would probably play off of each other and balance their playing agaist each other in the room, and the engineers would set the guitar levels against each other as the producer desired for the session. At least that's how I read it.

 

[emrr]

I should jump in here. For 8 track, the guitars were feeding an Altec mixer where they were mixed to track 5. The bass was split out to a compressor and fed to track 8. The whole room was hearing the guitars and bass from the Altec studio monitor under the mixer. The musicians were creating the balance. The direct sound of guitarists and bass players listening to a monitor rather than an amp makes a greater difference than one would expect. Typically, only the drummers and the organ player in the iso room wore headphones.

Good to see you jump in on this Bob!

From (one of) the horse's mouths, folks.

 

[jacomart]

So the control room and the musicians

I don't think that's what was said...

The players created their own mix balance in the live room. The engineers created the balance of guitars and printed to track 5, and sent bass separately to track 8. The musicians would probably play off of each other and balance their playing agaist each other in the room, and the engineers would set the guitar levels against each other as the producer desired for the session. At least that's how I read it.

So the guys in the control room and the musicians were listening two different mixes? May be... even if it sound strange to me.

 

[untune]

To reiterate emrr, thanks for joining the discussion Bob, it's great to have you here

 

[emrr]

So the guys in the control room and the musicians were listening two different mixes? May be... even if it sound strange to me.

Pretty standard actually. Someone always wants something different in the headphones. Common now to have individual mixing systems for each musician.

 

[untune]

So the control room and the musicians

So the guys in the control room and the musicians were listening two different mixes? May be... even if it sound strange to me.

I may be wrong but yes I had always taken it that the musicians set their live room mix so that they could comfortably monitor themselves whilst playing together, the preamp outs delivered a clean isolated signal of each instrument channel at the correct level to go direct to the recorder for best s/n so that they could mix/submix as required later in the process

 

[abbey road d enfer]

So the guys in the control room and the musicians were listening two different mixes? May be... even if it sound strange to me.

How strange? Isn't it the de facto standard? 9 times out of 10, musicians have a headphone mix and the SE has a monitor mix.