|Checksums||shn-md5 , st5|
|Disc Counts||2 / 3|
|Source Summary||Updated Source; SBD > MR > C (no dolby) > DAT > CD > EAC > SHN; was marked: SBD > MR > DAT > CD > EAC > SHN; EAC/SHN by Darryl Hinko|
|Other Sources (comments)
Updated lineage: Recording... (1) Source: CAUD... (0) PLEASE NOTE: This is a... (0) flac16; Recording... (0) flac16; Matrix by... (0) flac16; AUD: 2x... (0) flac16; Loge Dead... (0)
|08/21/2003||Mike Leatzow||Are the r and l channels reversed? Seems to me Brent should be coming out of my right speaker?! Was there any period of time Brent played that he was not to the right of Jerry? Anyone that knows for sure please send me an e-mail. Thanks! Mike|
|09/25/2003||Mark Goldey||I wasn't paying attention to the stereo image of the recording, but it is a nice, tight SBD and I really like the overall sound quality.|
|09/25/2003||Brian B.||See,now I think this is a subjective opinion.Do you REALLY expect the sound coming out of your speakers to reflect where they're set up on stage?|
|09/25/2003||Zeb||even when Jerry was on the right side of the stage (starting in April 1982), Brent was still to his right...|
|09/25/2003||mcole||Also, sometimes SBD recordings are captured from the band's perspective; stage left to the band is right to the audience.|
|09/26/2003||pscotton||That would be stage monitors not the SBD.|
|09/26/2003||BuD||Unless its a "Monitor mix", What are you supposed to do when you listen to it ... aim your speakers away from you? Actually, I remember being at many shows where there was a conclusive stereo sound coming from the stage, but it wasn't always with the arrangement of the band members on stage. Of course, on stage, the band would have their own arrangment of speakers and monitors so they could hear themselves and the others. A normal soundboard tape should capture what the audience heard, as the board collects the bands instruments, mixes it, adds whatever else is needed, then sends that signal out to the speakers around the stage aimed out at the audience (as well as the onstage monitors, which are mixed different then the audience speakers). An example of a "Monitor mix" would be one version of the 12-31-1981 Grateful Dead show where they recorded a "dry" mix of the show for later analyses by the band members!|
|09/26/2003||Zeb||Wouldn't a normal soundboard tape capture what you would hear if you were standing onstage behind Mickey and Billy, not what you'd hear if you were in the audience...?|
What Harry produced for the individual band members was not necessarily complete sound. It was what each member wanted to hear and each monitor was unique. Furthermore, the montiors weren't stereo. (Remember, when they went to earphones, they wore a single phone.) And yes, the reference point is the sound in the hall not on stage (which could be dramatically different depending on where you stood.) I have attached some ruminations about all this from a more knowledgeable source which explain in more detail the above summary.
"Yes, Harry was (is??) the monitor mixer, up on stage-right's corner where they could see each other easily. I think each of them could motion to him to tweak something if they couldn't hear well enough, or hear the right thing. Yes, each monitor is unique, and I never heard of any one monitor being stereo, except consider these divergent things:
"Different for each member is what he needs to stay aligned: Does Weir need to keep the beat, or be sure his guitar's in tune, or even his singing? Those all might be different on different nights, too. (Actually, with the drums right behind him, his keeping the beat easily is presumed - but if he'd not been almost enveloped in drums, he might have needed drums in the mix in order to know exactly where in the music he was. Brent, being farther from the drums, had mucho drums in his monitors.) Weir, with his own voice, might want to hear Brent's voice to keep his singing true, and enough Jerry guitar to play against. Phil made enough thunder-rumbling for everyone to know where HE was - again, probably except for Brent. Phil, with his own speakers blasting him, might need to hear a little of everyone........... or perhaps if he only knew where Jerry was musically, he could assume everyone else was in place with Jerry - and of course, he had the drums by him, as well. I'm kinda speculating here. (Out of the corner of Phil's eye, he was probably aware of where Weir was by his arm movements.) The drummers could see body cues better than anyone else, and might not have needed much besides their own selves.
"When they did their stage rotations like back in the 70's mostly, I guess they completely started from scratch! Likewise when the ear-monitors came around, everything got re-calculated, with the ear canal now obstructed from more 'natural' hearing. Also a singer HAS to hear himself sing - another variable with the ear-thingies.
"Everyone had a different need to hear different cues. As to actual singing, I don't know what they'd all have been. My only guess would be, as I mentioned, that Brent could help them all stay in tune, and mayyyyyyyyybe Weir's harmony notes would be helpful to Jerry, or vice versa. Poor Donna. I imagine she was fucked six ways from Sunday every time she got up there with that crew. Harmonically, of course. Remember her fingers in her ears? Oh - I mean - one finger in one ear, to hear her own voice louder. I can imagine the rest of them did not need her in THEIR mixes.
"The blurb refers to the presumptive stereo sound from onstage. The sound of Weir's guitar might be coming from his stack (in stage center), and off to the right (as the writer below viewed the stage), from Jerry's monitor........ or Phil might be coming from Brent's monitors as well as Phil's side of the stage, all simulating something stereo-ish. (FUNNY: I just put on your 8-26-71, was partway into Bertha when I typed Brent's name and did a whoosh-warp-does-not-compute thing as if I'd stepped out into open space somewhere. Time tripping is soooooo taxing, don't you find? Remember Billy Pilgrim and Montana Wildhack in Schlachthaus F?nf?)
"Now to Harry (again I speculate a bit): I think there were channels for each instrument and voice, maybe some few channels for all the drums? This was a small board - ask Menke - maybe 24 channels? While he's mixing a little Brent-voice-Jerry-guitar into Phil's monitor, it might be mixing down into one channel on his board, and while drums-Phil-Weir-voice is going into Brent's monitor, that mix is another channel. I've never been very clear then, on what 'monitor mix' tapes were, exactly, at least to Deadheads; obviously they'd have been useful for singers in the band to learn from - how my voice sounds better when I have this other voice to bounce off of, yada yada....... Lyd and I used to wonder what happened to Harry's tapes, if there were any that got out, and what they sounded like, and if we were really interested....
"As to 'that sound' in 12-31-81, someone would have to convince me. I think the amount of the show that has that flat, dry sound was just a mistake - it's in MY tapes, and I know where *I* was that night, and it wasn't by Harry! It may not have even been a mistake....... but I'm pretty sure that whatever is referenced below, is indeed Dan's own soundboard. Do you have different versions of this show now, to put this idea forward - or do you know if it's a prevalent belief that that 12-31-81 is a Harry mix, because of 'that sound'??? I remember the mikes suspended from the ceiling, in an attempt to capture some of the M-S matrix, and I remember one o' them biiiiiiiig balloons hitting the mikes and knocking them off-kilter. Could that have been the 30th? and they might not have been rearranged and re-calibrated by the next night. I really don't remember what night it was. Perhaps the mike feed, and/or whatever effects like reverb and echo, the warm part of sound/music, just got disconnected and 'that sound' happened - all totally by mistake......... no one would have known til later, since there were no 3-head decks or monitoring of ANY sort going on! (I've always been partial to the idea that the shwooshy-rocket-takeoff noise at midnight made the board get its settings all weird and they just never got fixed - but don't I also recall that the Joan Baez set had that same quality to it, flat, and dry?"
|09/27/2003||BuD||Thats easy to explain. Sure, each monitor on stage would have a different mix ... but they all came from ONE source, which branched out from the monitor mixer. The feed into the monitor mixers board would come from the main soundboard (It helped to keep this signal dry of any added reverb, echo or whatever was added to the audience speakers). So the dry monitor mix could be recorded AT the soundboard .. not necessarily on stage right. But regardless the recorded signal would be the same, and it would differ from the audience speakers signal.|
|09/27/2003||pscotton||If your theory is that Dan taped a different "monitor mix" at the SBD, especially one where he reversed the channels, I can tell you that it didn't happen.|
Sorry .. I got way off the original point of this thread. I was partly responding to the "recorded from the bands perspective" comment. I have plenty shows where the stereo mix coming from the left and right speakers isnt relevent to the arrangement of the band members on stage. I believe in most cases these are accurate of what was originally recorded.
There is no reason to believe that the channels got swapped on this source.
|09/27/2003||pscotton||And back to Mike's comment that started this thread: yes, Brent should be in the right channel (he has some presence in the left channel but he is predominantly in the right). Somewhere along the line in the version posted here the channels got swapped, if Brent is predominantly in the left channel. I suspect that it's not Caleb's source tape (Caleb's tapes are quite reliable) but I guess stranger things have happened.|