Sound quality on Beatles recordings

what sets them apart? Engineer, Studio, sound of the band...

 

PYE could rival Abbey Road on a good day:

 

All the major studios were capable of great sounding recordings, lots of talented engineers - the common factor along with the Beatles in their recordings is George Martin.

If it sounded musically pleasing to George Martin, it passed the audition.

[the Let It Be LP was post-produced by another sound painting genius - lucky us]

 

I agree completely. Ray Davies sounds like he is singing through a tin can in Rosie Won't You Please Come Home. Abbey Road did great work in comparison.

 

This might be blasphemy but I think the mono US Meet The Beatles is unique and exciting. I absolutely love the sound, especially having heard the very ordinary sounding outtakes from the same sessions. Nothing else I know has the same feel.

 

The new mono pressing of WTB is audiophile nirvana compared to some of the original mono pressings, especially the -3N/-3N cutting.

 

Yes, George was a participant as well as an engineer...

 

The session tapes sound great, though.

 

It struck me that compared to the EMI-production and SQ the Decca Tapes sound fantastic! The first two albums sound fine (in mono), A Hard Day's Night sounds okay in stereo too. I think Beatles for Sale sounds great because it has many of the characteristics of a rushed job. The mid-period just was too much experimentation, overdubbing and ADT-ing for two or four tracks; too much fooling about with the tapes. The most simple recordings of the White Album sound fine, many of the other tracks have tons of compression.
In my opinion; the songs are fantastic, but the 'revolutionary' sounds and sounds-effect didn't do much for the SQ as such.

 

Exactly. Take Revolver for instance: one of the greatest records of all time, not one of the greatest sounding records of all time...but what the hell, it works!

 

When I listen to Elvis recordings from 1960-64, I always wonder why the Beatles don't sound as good. Were American studios so far ahead in the early to mid Sixties?

 

Apparently some of them were, which is why The Beatles originally wanted to record the album that became Revolver in Memphis...

 

The Hamburg recordings (not the live ones) sound great.

 

Please Please Me, Pepper, Abbey Road - those are the few that sound good to me, ie
well recorded, the White album sounds terrible to me.
I love the sound the Stones got recording at Chess, super clean

 

Ha, then half the folks here will scream they "BOOSTED" Paul's bass. Mark my words my friend. It WILL happen. Ron

 

I'm an average person with normal ears and I don't think the Beatles records sound bad. I mean, you can distinguish the different instruments, the vocals come across loud and clear... I'd say the Kinks and 1964-1965 Stones sound bad, not the Beatles.
Anyway, using a 2009 CD (mono would be my choice, but stereo is OK too) as a source and Audacity software, would a nice and gentle soul post simple EQ moves that would make a bad recording sound better? Thank you very much.

 

But Steve, you DO know the answer. Martin and Smith wanted those early records to have a huge impact on crappy British home systems, but more importantly on portable and car radios. The extra compression and midrange shout often made those records sound more exciting than those of their contemporaries. Just last week I listened to a mint copy of She Loves You/I'll Get You (US Swan) on a 1960's era cabinet stereo (Fisher, I believe) and it sounded incredible. Loud, clear vocals and nice guitar. Of course there was no defined bass (neither Paul's bass or Ringo's bass drum) and the ride cymbal was all swishy, but man, it was exciting. Ringo's opening drum part was also quite nice and loud. Ron

PS As late as March 1969 Paul was still playing acetates in his car to determine whether he liked a mix or not. I believe after listening to several, he had Glyn Johns remix the single version of Get Back to sound better on a car radio.

 

Remember to let it into your heart. Then you can start to make it better.

 

I've got something to say that might cause you pain, I can't let it into my heart.

 

Basically what I'm saying - their records sound clear and everything is well defined. Early Stones,Kinks,Who records are muddy sounding - still love many of them despite the lack of clarity

 

Producer!

George talking about the roles (see links to soundclips):

http://www.beatlesagain.com/bgeorgem.html

(I presume he's talking about Geoff Emerick? Another great artist involved.)

 

Yes...it's true. Even if that's what's on the tape....

 

They were recording on 8 tracks in US studios in 1965, probably earlier (someone here will know, I'm sure!), while The Beatles were bouncing down to 4 tracks - hence losing quality - up to late 1967.

 

Nice remix! Where was that mix released?

Finally I am convinced that Mick didn't sing "playin' her half-assed games."

 

I believe this particular mix was first released on a greatest hits in 1975.
But i'm not sure.
Lukpac could tell you.