Blondie's "Heart of Glass" Broke New Ground in Studio Craftsmanship

Blondie combined both pop AND art.

I was one of those teenagers that actually had heard of Blondie before the Parallel Lines LP. I had heard X-Offender on the radio, and had read about Debbie Harry, New York's platinum-headed punk bombshell who wore clingy t-shirts and knee-pads. Knowing she had been a Playboy bunny certainly got the attention of this 17-year-old.

Then they hit it big with "Heart of Glass" in '78. A lot of people said, "Blondie has gone disco," "Blondie has sold-out!" Well that may have been true and I may have even said that myself (to nobody there). However, I didn't know anybody who actually didn't like the song. I mean, I loved the song and went out and bought the album. The whole LP was great, with it's other, much more rock/punk/power-pop offerings. I realized that, no matter what genre they dabbled in -- and they dipped their pens in all colors of musical ink -- Blondie was at its core a great rock-band with excellent musicians. Those cats could play the phonebook and it would sound good. Add to that Blondie's hip image and one of the most beautiful singers ever to ever pout with a microphone, and you have a sure-fire formula for success in 1978.

With that said, I found this neat video on YouTube, a short little rockumentary on the making of "Heart of Glass". It's really interesting. I especially like how the narrator mentions how this session was during the peak of analog recording, and I couldn't agree more. As a recording engineer I love learning how they built this million-selling crossover hit. As a music-lover with a rose-tinted rear view mirror, It stirs up a nostalgic affection for the song, the band, and the time.

Recording FAQ: J. From PA asks,

I just acquired a near-mint pair of dbx 165's. I have heard they sound a lot like the Urei 1176. How are they similar or different? Also, the Urei comps, 1176, 1178, LA-3, LA-4, etc, all seem like different versions of the same thing. Am I right about that?

Hey J,

Are those 165's or 165A's? The "A" goes for about $150 more typically. The only reason is that the "A" has the peak-stop limiter which nobody uses anyway (ugly clipping). The non-A does not have that, but who cares?

There are many differences between the Urei comps. The LA-types, LA-2A, LA-3A and LA-4 are opto (optical) comps. They have a electro-optical attenuator in there that creates the compression. The 1176, 1176LN and the 1178 are non-opto FET comps. So, they are a completely different circuit principle, and have far more parametric control (attack, release, ratio). For one thing, an 1176 is much faster than any LA. The LA's have a softer knee and a smoother dynamic response, so they are great for tracking things like vocals, but they sort of do one thing really well. The 1176 is far more versatile and controllable, so you can use it on a lot of things. In my opnion, the best REISSUE 1176LN is the Purple Audio MC77, which we sell for $1640, and it sounds more like the original blackface LN from the mid 1960s than the UA reissue. "LN" stands for "Less Noise" BTW. The silver ones are less expensive and less desirable than the black, because the black ones have a UTC output transformer that people love the sound of. When they went to the silver-face later on, they went to (as I recall but I might be wrong) an op-amp for the output, which changed the sound. They still sound good, but most engineers prefer the black ones.

I know and love the dbx's well, and in my whole 24-year career, I've found that any serious studio has both dbx and Urei comps because they are both good for different applications. The only dbx that might get used on a vocal WOULD be the 165, and if set correctly CAN be used on many sources. (The "auto" attack/release on there is your friend!) However, the dbx comp uses a VCA (voltage controlled amplifier) for dynamic control, yet ANOTHER circuit principle. dbx stands for David Blackmer Electronics, and David Blackmer revolutionized audio by inventing the VCA back in 1970(?). So the dbx's are great, but they sound very different than any Urei. They shine on drums and percussion, and are what gives you the famous snare-crack and kick-drum pop or punch. In general, though, a VCA comp tends to be harder-sounding than other types.

You can certainly get away with a lot with those 165's, but a nice pair of optos, LA-4s, or my personal desert-island comp, the LA-3A, is gonna give you a whole 'nother flavor.

Any questions? I can be reached at Sonic, 802-365-9190 or drew@soniccircus.com

More info on VCAs

More info on Urei 1176 and LA-2A

More on opto compression


Photo: THE famous blackface 1176LN, a studio standard for 40 years.

June Recording Tip...Passive EQ!

Anyone who has spent more than two hours in recording has heard of “passive EQ”, but what is a passive equalizer, and why is its sublime quality so desirable? There are two ways to explain passive equalization: First, one can describe the circuit as a series of passive filters made up of resistors and inductors, followed by a make-up amplifier on the output which restores the amplitude lost by inserting the filters. OR, we can use the much more fun one-word description: “Pultec”! Yep, those old, three-rack-space mono monsters are passive EQs with a honkin’ tube amp on their back-end to make up gain. This is a different principle than “active” EQs like the famous Neves, which have a more aggressive sound. The magic of a good passive EQ is that it is subtle but VERY musical, enabling many db of boost without sounding artificial. For instance, the low-boost on the famous Pultec EQP-1A has been the BIG knob for kick-drum for decades. When you dial in that Pultec 60hz for the first time, you immediately recognize it from major recordings. Of course, Big Blue's treble-boost is famous for giving air and presence to vocals. You can floor it at 16K and it still sounds natural. Manley’s Massive Passive is a brilliant modern rendition of the passive EQ, and one of my absolute favorite devices ever made. (And forget those plug-ins, they don’t cut it! If you want the sound of real passive EQ, analog hardware is a must!)

Drew’s favorite passive EQs: THE Pultec EQP-1A, EQP-1A3, EQP-1S, EQH2, MEQ-5; The Manley Massive Passive; The Manley/Langevin Mini-Massive; The Chandler EMI Channel MKII; The Pendulum Quartet/Quartet II; The Amtec PEQ-1A

Review of the ADAM P22A 2-Way Active Studio Monitor

This review appears in the current issue of Tape-Op, a 'zine I ocassionally write for. It's a great publication geared toward the DIY musician, engineer and producer:

I love great-sounding speakers. I guess you could call me a monitor guy. Ever since I blew up the studio’s last pair of NS-10s in 1990, I’ve been on a quest for the perfect tracking and mixing monitor, one which exhibits the rare balance between musicality and accuracy. It’s not an easy thing to find, as I’m sure all you Tape-Op readers know. I am also a true-believer that an excellent pair of monitors, well-matched to the room, should be at the very top of any gear wish-list when assembling a project studio. Really, how can you get any work done if you aren’t hearing the full spectrum of sound?

My own quest started seventeen years ago, when I experienced Genelec S-30 ribbon monitors for the first time. They were the most realistic speaker I had heard up until then. I couldn’t quite get them rocking loud enough for my tastes, but they sure sounded good. At this point I realized there was no going back to the Yamahas. By ’92 I was using Meyer HD-1; the first popular self-powered console-top monitor. By ’94 it was the first generation KRKs, and then it was on to the Genelec 1031A in ’97. In 1998, I first encountered the Dynaudio BM15A, a discovery which changed my life. Never before had I heard a speaker so dynamic, so three-dimensional and detailed, so punchy, and so versatile. I’ve used it for tracking, overdubbing, mixing, you name it, without getting fatigued. The bass is deep enough even to track drums and bass. I thought I’d found the perfect studio monitor, and to this day, I love that speaker. Since then, not much else has grabbed my attention…until now.

I recently became hip to the ADAM P22A, and wow, I am lovin’ that monitor! And I thought I hated ADAMs! All I had heard before was the ADAM S3A, which some people swear-by but which I have never been able to get a handle on. I guess they are a, “Can you handle the awful truth?” kind of speaker. And at five grand a pair? Fuggedaboudit! I’ll take my Dyns any day, thank you.

Then one day not too long ago ADAM’s Dave Bryce informed me that ADAM makes monitors in every size shape and price-range, so just because I disliked the S3A didn’t mean I should condemn all of the ADAM range. He asked me some questions about the type of speakers I like, and then suggested the P22A. I’m very glad he did. Thanks, Dave. For one thing, I'm a fan of vertically aligned two-way monitors (like a BM15A). So the P22A is a good match for a guy like me. (Even when I used the old NaSty-10s back in the day, I never laid them on their sides. Do people listening at home put their speakers on their sides?). I found the P22A to have tight yet deep bass, high SPL, fast, supple mids, and highs that are sparkly but never harsh. There are many things about the P22A I really like. First, they have a very wide and solid sweet-spot. Sometimes ribbon monitors bother me because the off-axis response gets phasey and weird, and you have to lock your head in to one tiny little mix position to get a clear image. This is not the case with the P22A at all; they have nice dispersion. Second, you CANNOT hear the crossover. It's absolutely transparent -- no odd valleys or peaks, which is a very desirable trait. Smooth from bottom to top. Even my beloved Dynaudio 15As get a little fussy at the crossover-points. Third, the speed of the folded ribbon gives the P22 really nice dynamics, detail, and three-dimensionality. This enables fine sculpting because you can really hear your EQ, compression and effects.

Fourth, they’re LOUD, rating 109db in the SPL column. You rock and hip-hop guys can get them cranking, which again is a trait not typical of classic ribbons.

Fifth, the P22A has deep bass, going down to 38hz, so you can feel the bottom octave, but it’s a tight, defined low-end, never boomy or rumbly. For many applications, this avoids the need for a subwoofer. But what I like the best is that the P22A is a very musical monitor. The silky highs, supple mids and punchy lows make it a pleasure to work on all day long. Most importantly, they translate AMAZINGLY! I usually have to mix and remix a song a couple of times to get the frequency balance right. My very first mix on the P22A was perfect. One and Done! (One song on a ten-song CD was mixed on the P22A, and I liked it so much I told the mastering engineer to use that track as the model to match all the others to). It's a rare speaker that is both musical AND accurate. Usually real "happy" speakers don't reference well, and super-accurate speakers are boring and no fun to work on. I can count the monitors that do both on one hand. The P22A is in that rare group. At half the price of the S3A, it lands at the same $2500.00/pair price-point as the Dynaudio BM15A.

Yep. I think the ADAM P22A just knocked my Dyns off the console.

Drewcifer’s Recording 101 Primer

Spring Mixing Tip: Pre-delaying the Reverb

You don’t hear a lot of heavy or obvious reverb on modern pop recordings. The vocals tend to be very up-front and dry. But are they really dry? Is it possible to add depth and dimensionality to vocals using reverb that is extremely subtle? Absolutely! It’s done all the time. One way to accomplish this is to pre-delay the ‘verb. That’s why that “pre-delay” parameter is a feature on most modern reverbs, be they plug-ins or outboard. It wasn’t always so easy: Back in the days of the analog pioneers, the mixing guy would send the vocal-signal through a delay unit, usually a tape delay, which was daisy-chained in-front of a plate reverb. This delayed the onset of the reverb by 50ms to 100ms or more. The gap between the dry vocal and the reverb makes the vocal stand forward more, sound “drier”, and not be “swamped” by the ‘verb. In the end result, the reverb may not be obvious at all, but if it was removed you’d definitely notice something was missing.

Ghost Harmonics

Well, I have to start with something, right? I have so much I want to post, that deciding where to begin is hard. So I went to some recent posts of mine on Gearslutz and pretty much randomly grabbed one.

It's choice was not quite random, truth-be-told. I have been listening to a couple CDs I engineered and produced back in '90 and '91 by a band called Anastasia Screamed. This was a very unusual, adventurous band. You could almost call them Avant Garde, and definitely ahead of their time (Pre Nirvana "Never Mind"). The sound-scape we created was that of noisy but flowery guitars, sometimes harmonically beautiful, sometimes clashing and dis-cordant.

http://www.anastasiascreamed.com/index_flash.html
http://www.myspace.com/anastasiascreamed23

We layered electrics (primarily Fenders) and acoustics over multiple tracks. Like, the two guitar-players would both play on the basic track along with the drums and bass, and then I'd have the two of them both do an overdub pass at the same time, often playing different parts and guitars than they had played on the basic. So in two passes we had created four electric tracks. Then we'd do leads and acoustic guitars, feedback tracks, the occasional slide guitar part, and even a dulcimer or mandolin track on a song or two.

The guitar mics we used were SM57, Senn 421, Beyer M500 ribbon (my secret weapon back then, before the whole ribbon revival), and even some very nice vintage condensers, like Neumann U67, M49 and AKG C12. Pres were usually API 512B, along with the desk pres from a Trident 80B and a Neve V. Compression, when used, was usually my standard choice, the Teletronix Urei LA-3A. Nice gear huh? Recording guitar is my love and my specialty anyway, so I was in hog-heaven. And these guys were good players, albiet unorthodox. Funny thing was, they could play everything from country to blues to jazz to Led Zepplin if they felt like it. But their original songs sounded like all of those influneces spun together in some psychedelic Osterizer. The result was challenging alternative rock music, which some might even consider an acquired taste.

So I'm driving around in my car the last couple days, listening to these CDs for the first time in 1o years, and really enjoying what I was hearing, especially the guitars. And knowing full-well there were many guitar tracks, I was hearing sounds-- voices, bells, organs, etc --that I know were NOT part of the recording. And this time I was sober as a judge, unlike when we were creating the recordings. Let's just say there was a lot of "magic" happening in the studio then.

Which brings me to the Gearslutz post:
http://gearslutz.com/board/
Replying to a guy who was hearing a "phone ring" in a mix he was working on.

Phones, choir voices, horns, acoustic guitars, harps, angels...If you DON'T hear those things in your mixes you are unusual. I noticed it much more in the all-analog days, but when all those instruments combine they create overtones and bell-like sounds that become a sounds in-and-of themselves. We called 'em "Ghost Harmonics". I remember one time we were mixing this tune and suddenly this keyboard string kinda synth part just appeared out of nowhere. There were no keys on the tracks. All guitars and vocals. When we played the finished mix for the artist, they actually thought we had added a keyboard part. Nope. Overtones.