From tonysounds@yahoo.com Thu Mar 18 05:05:49 2004
Subject:Re: that Leslie sound you hear?

Hmmmm...thats an interesting perspective. What you are NOT taking into account however is that you were dealing with the best engineers doing the recording and the sound reinforcement live. While the equipment used was in its nascent stages, it was state of the art for its time. To think that your organ tones, whether DI'd or mic'd (and yes, it IS MIC'd....it's not mikrophone, it's microphone, so the abbreviated form should indeed be mic'd; if you read "miked" it was because the writer/user was obviously either illiterate or not familiar with the word microphone) don't sound altered now, you are kidding yourself. Just because we have advanced the state of the art of recording and sound reinforcement doesn't mean we have overcome the physics law of "every action has a reaction." Anytime you introduce something into a signal chain, you will indeed alter the signal from its original source. Even if it's miniscule or imperceptible to you, by the time you amplify it, it will indeed
change something. Also, let's keep in mind that these same tools, the microphones and recording consoles, are HIGHLY desired by gold eared engineers around the globe precisely because of their EQ curves.

The bottom line is, Greg Rolie's sound WAS the sound of a Hammond and leslie being driven to the breaking point, because of volume issues (I've played in a Santana band, and with 3 percussionists and a guitarist who plays stinkin loud, you NEED to be that loud), and because of lack of maintenance (due to finances). It's an awesome sound!

Tony
jake92028 wrote:
Howdy cloners.. I'd just like to bring up an eensy, teensy, weensy
factor about how certain classic Hammond w/Leslie(s) sound to you on
a recording: The Leslie you hear is a Leslie that was miked (who
changed 'mike' to 'mic' anyway - does "microphone" sound
like "mikrophone" to you? Huh? Huh? Does it? :^b) So you're hearing
characteristics of the mike(s) that were used to get that sound into
the PA (1960's-70's musician grade) or into a higher-than-Leslie-watt
amp, (factor in the amp's characteristics); and of course into a
sound engineers board either live at a concert or in the studio, with
what? The answer is: EQ squared! Hammond->Leslie->mike->amp->mike->PA-
>mike->mixer->EQ->tape->remastered->CD/DVD.

So you really have only heard what Greg's Hammond/Leslies sounded
like if you were in the audience close to the stage, or onstage. Per
the latter circa 1972, they sounded like a B3 and Leslies with the
amps turned up = all you had to do was turn those amps up and
overdrive the tubes. I don't believe more than one in a hundred
players realized that's what was happening; they just knew Leslies
sounded "good" set on 11. It's what concert-goers expected to hear
when they saw a Hammond four-poster and those brown boxes with the
louvers and thingies going around. As I recall, from the back of the
audience the sound was closer to what the recordings give you. They
didn't have Speakeasy, but they had Shure..

If you really want to get the recorded sound out of your rotary
connection.. then get an old garage sale Shure mike, like a PE 585
High Impedance, hook it up to an old Shure mixer with dials and a
60's-70's guitar, bass, or PA amp and cabinet(s): Mike whatever your
sound's coming from into this truly vintage setup = Wow! ..or not. Wj

To unsubscribe, send email to: CloneWheel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CloneWheel/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CloneWheel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

mm.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]