Sound quality on Beatles recordings

The snare and toms were overdubbed on Birthday, which is why it sounds so "in your face".

 

Lewisohn says that there were 4 takes but take 1 was the best which means no overdub.
So the second guitar (definitely Gibson J-160e) coming in at the start of the second verse probably is John, which makes sense. The first guitar sounds like Gretsch Duo Jet.

Ondra

 

Don't forget that on some of the tracks where Macca wasn't playing bass, the others used the BassVI which didn't exactly go low.

 

I agree that "sounds like hell" may be a bit much. I've never had a problem with the sound on the White album overall. Might disagree with you
on the Stones comparison at the time (1968) because Beggar's Banquet sounds incredibly well recorded to my ears!

 

Are referring to a remastered version of Beggar's, or the original LP?

 

That was a heavy sound on the kit. Lots of maracas too.

 

Hiss city, although better in some ways than many of her UK recordings. Love the record, but it's not a hi-fi showcase.

Like I said, some tracks on The Beatles sound a lot better than others, but given the late vintage and lack of as much hyper-production a lot of this record sounds inexplicably bad.

 

The stereo version of the first album was released one month after the initial mono release. Careful perusal of Lewisohn does not support the idea that the stereo mixes were commonly ignored or downplayed.

 

Well actually... as we know now from the Beach Boys remixes, if the tapes from which each bounce was made still exist, it is very possible these days to sync them and do a new multitrack mix.

 

I tend to agree. I think the recent negativism towards the stereo versions were more of a marketing ploy than anything else in order to support the mono vinyl reissues. The fact that they made the stereo versions in such a short time compared to the mono versions is normal: most of the mixing work had already been done.

 

How much of the difference is down to reverb?

I dunno Steve, the sound of mixes at my crappy low-end studio can be noticeably changed by just eq-ing the reverb send.

 

I've heard some of the boots that sound much better than the equivalent Anthology tracks. Do we know if these boots were rough draft mixes done in the 60's on the same equipment with much less processing, or were they done perhaps in the 70s/80s on solid state gear (still with very little processing)? Just curious.

Do these boots have the transients missing from the standard releases?

Thanks.

 

What would folks say are the three best recorded Beatles albums and which are the three worst recorded?

 

Going by what I've read in these forums, all the Beatles songs sound awful except the Capitol releases, the mono's and the UK releases. . .sometimes. Other times they all sound great except for the Capitol releases, the mono's and the UK releases. . .sometimes.

 

I think we are comparing Apples (lol) and oranges --

The Four Seasons biggest hits were from '62 to '64 - compare Beach Boys and Beatles from same era and there is less difference.

Its on Rubber Soul, Revolver and after that it seems like The Beatles have a leg up on some other bands of the era (The Who, The Kinks). Likewise, The Beach Boys recordings from Pet Sounds era sound incredible today and compared to peers.

 

Yes-- we forget that the U.K in the late 50s was 10 years off recovery from a devastating war and was essentially years behind the U.S. and Europe in technology like TV/radio/recording - its why the Tony Sheridan Germany sessions sound better than the Parlophone sessions from a year later.

In the U.S. acts were using at least 3 track (see Sinatra) - stereo music with a center track for vocals, for years while Parlophone was doing twin track recording only.

Elvis had the benefit of the best studio, studio men, producers, equipment - the sound of Elvis is Back! in 1960 is the best sound you're going to hear from a 1960 rock recording.

Also remember that rock/pop was not taken seriously at the time and that the good facilities were saved for classical and other genres.

 

Both Band on the Run and Venus and Mars had quad mixes done - VM the quad is superior to the muddy stereo mix.

 

This was the major failure of Anthology - it almost feels like they didn't want to give us these unvarnished/clean recordings because we'd know how good they could sound.

 

Germany was A LOT more devastated than England! This has nothing to do with the war, but you are correct in saying that the better recordings were made for classical music - a majority of which came from the same Abbey Road during the 50's. And no, England was not years behind the US in recording technology. Quite the opposite actually...

 

so I´d say good sound = what gives the music the character it needs (yes, early Beatles was technical limitations and not done as conscious decision that lo-fi fits).

"bad sounding" is a phrase that´s discussable in this regard. much of the core Beatles records just hit the nail on the head, and although it doesn´t sound as clean, polished, crisp, whatever, much of the sound character had style. and I know too many things where a ´objectively superhi-fi pompous production´ would just destroy the character.

like some Indie Rock is great because it doesn´t have a Def Leppard production, which some may find as ´superior´ in sound.

 

It's hard to tell which was the best recorded. It's entirely possible an album like The Beatles - which is a mixed bag at best - was the best recorded. But things could subsequently go wrong, even very wrong, in the mix or in the mastering.

I think the best-sounding records are the ones George Martin digitally remixed back in the '80s - Help and Rubber Soul - plus Abbey Road, which was their first to fully benefit from more modern tech.

 

I referenced recording though. When the first two albums were recorded it was with an eye on the mono mix, not setting themselves up for a more successful stereo mix. 4 track changed that. They were a bit more mindful of seperation but again always with an eye on the mono first.

 

To me, Abbey Road is a genuinely phenomenally sounding record. The rest, as far as SQ are eh

 

They just took the "Sessions" mixes (i.e. for Not Guilty) and used those for some Anthology tracks - so a 1984 era remix vs one from 1994.

Some day we need a thread where we vote up songs to be on the ideal Anthology.

 

I'm a bass player who has played more sessions than I can count, and I have never encountered that problem. Most bass tracks you hear these days go through a direct box first (for me it's a tube DI).