How did old Hollywood record sound?

[Chamber005]

Another thread here got me thinking about old Hollywood. Nowadays we have all of this cutting edge technology, most of which blows away the tech they had to utilize in the 30s and 40s, and yet most indie films still end up with crap audio -- stuff not even comperable to any old Cary Grant flick.

Does anyone here have any idea what the exact equipment was that they used back in the day? I'm assuming they just recorded to tape, right; sometimes even records? Were the microphones even as good back then? They didn't have lav mics -- did they boom everything or was most of the dialog done in post in a sound stage?

I find that most people here talk about "perfecting" their sound in post. Well, back in the 40s they didn't even have software capable of adjusting the sound, at least not on the complex level we do now.

So how did old Hollywood manage to get feature grade sound using equipment and methods that are "out dated"? I'm completely perplexed by this.

(And don't attribute it all to sound stages. Any number of Hitchcock films were shot a good percentage outdoors).

 

[PerroneFord]

Well first, you need to define "old hollywood". First you talk about the 30's and 40's, then you talk about Hitchcock!

You'd be amazed how good the sound was (and still is) on solid reel to reel tape mahcines. Companies like AMPEX recorded some great stuff back in the day. Nagra was another popular company back in the 60s and 70s.

And yes, the microphones back all those years ago were pretty darn good too. Now if you are going back to WW2 days, then nearly all work was done in the studios. Shooting on location was quite rare. And yes ADR, and Foley were in their element then. Remember, film does not record sound (well, most popular hollywood film) so it all had to be separately anyway.

 

[unclebob6958]

There are a lot of great articles on the history of film sound on filmsound.org.

 

[misscc803]

@Chamber005-Time to read up. Enjoy!!!

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~smpte/timeline.html
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/sound/sound03.htm
http://filmsound.org/film-sound-history/


Perrone Ford-yep Nagra was well known then.

Nicole

 

[Barry_Green]

Technique is more important than technology when it comes to getting great film sound.

 

[Steve House]

Another thread here got me thinking about old Hollywood. Nowadays we have all of this cutting edge technology, most of which blows away the tech they had to utilize in the 30s and 40s, and yet most indie films still end up with crap audio -- stuff not even comperable to any old Cary Grant flick.

Does anyone here have any idea what the exact equipment was that they used back in the day? I'm assuming they just recorded to tape, right; sometimes even records? Were the microphones even as good back then? They didn't have lav mics -- did they boom everything or was most of the dialog done in post in a sound stage?

Magnetic tape recording didn't enter the American movie studio until well after WWII, first demo'ed in 1947 with captured German radio station euipment. Likewise shotgun mics are relatively recent. They used boom mics on Fisher booms, plant mics hidden around the set, and lots of looping in post.

I find that most people here talk about "perfecting" their sound in post. Well, back in the 40s they didn't even have software capable of adjusting the sound, at least not on the complex level we do now.

They didn't have ANY software until much, much later than that. Computers are a very recent phenomenon. HAL's "Daisy, Daisy" in "2001 - A Space Odyssey" was pretty much state of the art for computer sound until the 1980's. Until the last 20 years or so, sound editing was done by physically splicing the media, in the pre-wars days optical sound tracks and in the post-war era magnetic perf, and re-recording through a mixing board with various hardware equalizers, etc, all signal editing and processing being analog.

So how did old Hollywood manage to get feature grade sound using equipment and methods that are "out dated"? I'm completely perplexed by this.

They paid attention to detail and wouldn't accept anything less than performance up to the state of the art as it might have been possible at the time. The old-style methods were technically capable of high quality but were also very time- and labour- intensive, thus very expensive.

 

[Noiz2]

Hitchcock spans the times he was talking about and then some. He started with silent films and was really in his prime in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

Anyway NO "tape" till after WWII (the germans invented it and the guy who started AMPEX imported (smuggled) the first working machines into the US after WWII. They were recording on to optical tracks on film. Because of all the complications there were pretty much no location shots that were not MOS. A big part of the sound is that they were all done on sound stages. Even the big epic westerns and such were largely done on sound stages with location shots for setting the scene. Also everything (95%) is mono till the 70's. Now there was stereo and even surround (Fantasia was released (limitedly) in a surround format) but virtually no theaters had anything but mono so only big extravaganza films were done in anything but mono. The quality of equipment at the high end hasn't changed drastically since ~~~the 40's maybe even the 30's. The biggest change is the quality of the media making the recording. Old Mics and mixers are quite good but optical film is way below a decent tape machine. And with higher noise media you can't use a lot of tracks or the noise gets to be too much. So you don't really see high track counts till the 70's & 80's, thanks mostly to Dolby A and then SR noise reduction.

 

[paulears]

Old ribbon microphones used during the Second World War are still in use, and avidly sought by collectors. In fact old german microphones were just as great sounding as the UK and US based manufactured products - but as now, just a little different sounding. A few years ago, somebody released some Buddy Holly tracks from 1958, simply dubbed from tape to CD and the quality is amazing. What most of us remember as poor sound was the effective converting from tape to optical tracks on film - and this is where the quality was lost. The BBC frequently recorded location sound to disc and the quality is nowhere near as bad as people imagine. The real problems came when they had to dub, as the signal to noise ratio crept up quickly. many film techniques were simply borrowed from radio. Post back in those days was not what it is today - a totally different technique - back then merging just a few sound sources was all they had, with perhaps some real reverb added from an echo room. Eq tended to be basic filtering - but they did it. I seem to have read somewhere that once they had magnetic tape, then dialogue re-recording became loop based. A subject worthy of some study?

 

[Noiz2]

(And don't attribute it all to sound stages. Any number of Hitchcock films were shot a good percentage outdoors).

And which would those be? Hitchcock HATED location shooting. I would use other directors like John Houston, say who liked to get away from the studio.

 

[Chamber005]

And which would those be? Hitchcock HATED location shooting. I would use other directors like John Houston, say who liked to get away from the studio.

I remember Vertigo and The Birds having quite a bit of outside (non-stage) stuff, as well as North By Northwest.

I guess more to my point would be Why aren't more indie filmmakers now using old professional equipment from the 50s, 60s and 70s? Unlike HD cams vs 16mm and all that it entails with film prints, editing issues, etc., old professional sound equipment vs the newer low end stuff doesn't seem to hold up.

It just seems like when indie filmmakers ditched 16mm, they also ditched the audio devices they were using to record good audio in favor of more portable, digital devices (or worse, in-camera jacks).

So I guess what I'm really wondering is what did Roger Corman, Woody Allen and Martin Scorcese use to record their early audio stuff on? And would that 60s and 70s equipment be affordable for indie filmmakers today? And if so, why aren't they using it?

(I thought "old Hollywood" was a good place to start as good audio has been being recorded for years and on formats that are probably comperably priced to today's digital stuff).

 

[PerroneFord]

So I guess what I'm really wondering is what did Roger Corman, Woody Allen and Martin Scorcese use to record their early audio stuff on? And would that 60s and 70s equipment be affordable for indie filmmakers today? And if so, why aren't they using it?

(I thought "old Hollywood" was a good place to start as good audio has been being recorded for years and on formats that are probably comperably priced to today's digital stuff).

Well, unlike film, getting the MEDIA to use some of that old stuff is probably impossible or nearly so. The Zoom H4n or equivalent is LIGHT YEARS cleaner and better than any of that old stuff anyway. The problem with sound in indie film is not the equipment.

 

[Alex H.]

So I guess what I'm really wondering is what did Roger Corman, Woody Allen and Martin Scorcese use to record their early audio stuff on? And would that 60s and 70s equipment be affordable for indie filmmakers today? And if so, why aren't they using it?

(I thought "old Hollywood" was a good place to start as good audio has been being recorded for years and on formats that are probably comperably priced to today's digital stuff).

Nagra was the old standard. They certainly are fantastic machines, but the logistics of working with an open reel these days add man hours to post, and that's additional labor that folks really aren't looking to expend. New reels are also harder to find, since most companies that used to manufacture 1/4" reel tape have dropped it completely. Plus, used Nagra machines in good condition are going for anywhere from $700 - $1500. A portable, digital, 2-track recorder can be bought new for half the low end of that spectrum, and the file-based recording is much speedier to work with in post.

Higher-end digital recorders are comparable to a used Nagra, many of them even more expensive, but those are the ones that offer multi-track recording and time code... not always necessary for low-budget indie stuff. And if multi-track is needed, since most folks have laptops readily available, an investment of about $500 can get an interface with software to record 8 simultaneous tracks.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

They didn't have ANY software until much, much later than that. Computers are a very recent phenomenon. HAL's "Daisy, Daisy" in "2001 - A Space Odyssey" was pretty much state of the art for computer sound until the 1980's.

The 'joke' there was the 'Bicycle Built for Two', aka "Daisy Bell", the song was used in early versions of computer generated voice/music, the Bell Labs 1962 version being the most direct link to HAL, aka IBM ROT25.

 

[Noiz2]

I remember Vertigo and The Birds having quite a bit of outside (non-stage) stuff, as well as North By Northwest.

Look closer. Vertigo shot for like 4 days in SF for background plates and a few set up shots. The bell tower JS can't climb up, for instance, doesn't exist on that mission. It was a sound stage/ back lot creation. N by NW is similar, a few plates and some set up shots. They were not allowed to shoot on the actual location for the big finale so even those big mountain side moments are on a sound stage. The Birds I think had more on location but for instance Rear Window is all on a sound stage. To Catch a Thief was again a week or so for some plates and a few set up shots.

Some interesting reading

Hitchcock Locations

The Birds

 

[Noiz2]

So I guess what I'm really wondering is what did Roger Corman, Woody Allen and Martin Scorcese use to record their early audio stuff on? And would that 60s and 70s equipment be affordable for indie filmmakers today? And if so, why aren't they using it?

(I thought "old Hollywood" was a good place to start as good audio has been being recorded for years and on formats that are probably comperably priced to today's digital stuff).

That would be Nagra recorders and for all the reasons why that isn't a great idea today you can hop over to the thread that inspired you to start this one and look at the early posts. It's people and skill and philosophy that is important not the hardware. Most indi filmmakers either don't really care or don't care enough to produce good sound tracks. I have worked with some who do care and the difference is HUGE. You have to plan for good sound and that planning has to start BEFORE you lock i locations and BEFORE you start shooting. All too often you find posts here that say basically "Sound is VERY important to me. I just finished shooting and I noticed my production sound sucks, so tell me how to get that slick Hollywood sound". Caring about your sound only AFTER you shoot is like worrying about your virginity after a wild weekend of sex, it's just plain too late.

 

[Steve House]

Look closer. Vertigo shot for like 4 days in SF for background plates and a few set up shots. The bell tower JS can't climb up, for instance, doesn't exist on that mission. It was a sound stage/ back lot creation. N by NW is similar, a few plates and some set up shots. They were not allowed to shoot on the actual location for the big finale so even those big mountain side moments are on a sound stage. The Birds I think had more on location but for instance Rear Window is all on a sound stage. To Catch a Thief was again a week or so for some plates and a few set up shots.

Some interesting reading

Hitchcock Locations

The Birds

Reminds me - Dodge City's Main street on "Gunsmoke" also ended at the edge of town ... right at a painted studio wall. An unbelievable number of Hollywood "locations" were created by teams of very, very good matte painters and set designers applying the science of forced perspective.

 

[Chamber005]

Well, unlike film, getting the MEDIA to use some of that old stuff is probably impossible or nearly so. The Zoom H4n or equivalent is LIGHT YEARS cleaner and better than any of that old stuff anyway. The problem with sound in indie film is not the equipment.

Really, the H4N is that good?

I've personally never worked with sound equipment in the "normal" sense. My set up has only ever been:

broken DSR200 cam (XLR inputs) for recording audio to DV tapes

Xenyx 1202 mixer with mic preamps (phantom power)

Countryman lav mics

I know there's something wrong in my system because I always have to eliminate the "hiss" in post. I've messed with every level, Dbs, everything and most of the time I just leave everything alone.

I've had this set up just to help me learn shooting and synching video (w/ my HF200) and audio, but I'm at a point now where I can reassemble my "sound gear". Is the hiss something that's just going to be there no matter what and I'll just always have to remove it in post, or is there a major flaw in my recording device or mixer (the mics I know are solid)?

This should probably be a different thread altogether, but as long as we're here. :beer:

 

[Alex H.]

Really, the H4N is that good?

As a recorder, absolutely. I have an H4, and with a line-level feed from my mixer I get really pristine recordings. That bypasses the pre-amps, however, which are trash in the H4. The H4N is supposed to have improved pre-amps, but they eliminated the option of taking -10dB line level via the 1/4" connections (very handy in the H4). You can still minimize the play of the pre-amps in the H4N, but you'll end up having to pad the line-level mixer out way down to get a signal into the H4N.

I've personally never worked with sound equipment in the "normal" sense. My set up has only ever been:

broken DSR200 cam (XLR inputs) for recording audio to DV tapes

Xenyx 1202 mixer with mic preamps (phantom power)

Countryman lav mics

I know there's something wrong in my system because I always have to eliminate the "hiss" in post. I've messed with every level, Dbs, everything and most of the time I just leave everything alone.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have two major sources of hiss:

1) The audio circuits in the DSR-200 aren't going to be the best.

2) You're using a Behringer mixer, which is simply rubbish.

Now, not seeing (hearing) how you set up your audio from day to day, I can't say for sure that your gain staging isn't making the above challenges worse.

I've had this set up just to help me learn shooting and synching video (w/ my HF200) and audio, but I'm at a point now where I can reassemble my "sound gear". Is the hiss something that's just going to be there no matter what and I'll just always have to remove it in post, or is there a major flaw in my recording device or mixer (the mics I know are solid)?

Hiss can be solved both with better gear and with proper gain staging. It's not always going to be there if you have the right stuff and use it correctly. If you have a clean mixer, like the SD302, and feed it's line-level out to a digital recorder, you'll have clean audio. That is, of course, assuming that you aren't using cheap cables (especially over longer runs) with cheap, poorly-soldered connectors.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Hiss can be solved both with better gear and with proper gain staging. It's not always going to be there if you have the right stuff and use it correctly. If you have a clean mixer, like the SD302, and feed it's line-level out to a digital recorder, you'll have clean audio. That is, of course, assuming that you aren't using cheap cables (especially over longer runs) with cheap, poorly-soldered connectors.

Is there an equivalent to a standard 'terminating resistor' in the audio world? Like would a simple 600 Ohm resistor (if that's the characteristic impedence of a typical mic), across the 'mic' input, allow one to determine the noise contribution of the pre-amp?

 

[Richard Crowley]

Another thread here got me thinking about old Hollywood. Nowadays we have all of this cutting edge technology, most of which blows away the tech they had to utilize in the 30s and 40s, and yet most indie films still end up with crap audio -- stuff not even comperable to any old Cary Grant flick.

Does anyone here have any idea what the exact equipment was that they used back in the day? I'm assuming they just recorded to tape, right; sometimes even records? Were the microphones even as good back then? They didn't have lav mics -- did they boom everything or was most of the dialog done in post in a sound stage?

I find that most people here talk about "perfecting" their sound in post. Well, back in the 40s they didn't even have software capable of adjusting the sound, at least not on the complex level we do now.

So how did old Hollywood manage to get feature grade sound using equipment and methods that are "out dated"? I'm completely perplexed by this.

(And don't attribute it all to sound stages. Any number of Hitchcock films were shot a good percentage outdoors).

IIRC, they started recording to disc and then optical sound (variable area), and then to mag film (fullcoat where the entire 35mm width is magnetic oxide). No sound equipment is more impressive than a long bank of 35mm sound "dubbers" (record/playback decks) all synchronized and locked together with servo-motors.

Of course, in the 40s they didn't have computers, so of course there was no software )

They got that sound back in that primitive era by using quiet sound-stages; careful blocking to get those big old mics as close as practicable; actors who could project (many/most of them had stage experience), and of course ADR.

You may be interested in another discussion that happened here recently: Going old school for sound recording. Bottom line: the "good old days" are great for reminiscing, but you wouldn't want to go back there (even if you could afford it).