Sound quality on Beatles recordings

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by AFOS, Nov 26, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    I always marvel at the clarity and quality of many of The Beatles records - especially when compared to the muddy sound of many of their contemporaries. The Kinks for example. What set them apart? Was it merely the quality of their producer and engineers or a matter of them being able to spend as much time/$$$ until each one was perfect. A luxury many other bands didn't have.

    And what other 60's recordings do you think come close to the SQ of The Beatles?
     
    Mr-Beagle likes this.
  2. bek0727

    bek0727 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Beach Boys' LPs always sounded fantastic too say compared to the Four Seasons', which always sounded muddy and not at clear and defined.
     
    goodiesguy, Jimmy B. and AnalogJ like this.
  3. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    Yes, Good Vibrations was impeccably produced. Like The Beatles they could afford to spend months on recording.
     
  4. AppleCorp3

    AppleCorp3 Forum Resident

    I think it was the quality of the producers and engineers, the studio and quality control. They did not just rush it because they were a pop band.

    It was also the sound they were after. Some of the bands that have a muddy/grungy sound I always thought were trying to attain an amount of that.
     
  5. Jerry

    Jerry Grateful Gort Staff

    Location:
    New England
    It was the tight pants. Made for a more professional atmosphere in the studio.
     
    DRM, FJFP, mrbiggs and 20 others like this.
  6. Colocally

    Colocally One Of The New Wave Boys

    Location:
    Surrey BC.
    George Martin had horrible ties, but they did the job.
     
    DRM, wayneklein, Mr. Explorer and 6 others like this.
  7. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    bb.jpg Beatles records are basically bad sounding. Most people have put up with this for 50 years or more.

    This thread makes no sense so here is BB to help it unravel.
     
    DRM, somnar, Uncle Miles and 53 others like this.
  8. zebop

    zebop Well Known Stranger

    A lot of the Beatles recordings don't sound that great, it's the work that made people listen.
     
  9. Marc Bessette

    Marc Bessette The King of Somewhere Cold

    Finally.. An intelligent post on another Beatles thread
     
    Mr. Explorer, goodiesguy and Jasonb like this.
  10. RockWizard

    RockWizard Forum Resident

    I'm in no way an expert on the Beatles or sound, but from what I've read, EMI was a tight ship in many areas. From the equipment they used, it is amazing how "good" the end product was. One thing about the sound I NEVER liked was how thin the drum/bass was on the early recordings. Sometimes it sounded like Ringo was playing on drums with paper skins.
     
    Man at C&A, FJFP, McLover and 4 others like this.
  11. rockledge

    rockledge Forum Resident

    Location:
    right here
    George Martin.

    I really don't think they were trying for that. Grungy, yeah. But not muddy.
    It is just that they had what they had to work with. Especially in Britain, where getting recording technology took a long time. Big machines on boats inching across the sea and like that.
     
    DRM likes this.
  12. dino77

    dino77 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Europe
    Yes, some terrible recordings. The vocals on Tomorrow Never Knows sounds like monks chanting from mountaintops ;).
     
    DRM, Man at C&A, buddachile and 21 others like this.
  13. ralph7109

    ralph7109 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    They seems to sound better than most of the contemporary recordings of the day.

    I always thought it was pretty amazing how clear the Beatles sounded in 1964 - 1966 compared to early Stones, Kinks and many others.

    Are you saying they are bad sounding even for the times/compared to others or just bad sounding?
     
    DRM, SixtiesGuy, vinylbeat and 3 others like this.
  14. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    Tomorrow Never Knows is a good example - the fact that it was recorded in 1966 and sounds like something from the 90's is mind blowing
     
  15. nikh33

    nikh33 Senior Member

    Location:
    Liverpool, England
    The best sounding Beatles recording is 'Honey Don't' from Beatles For Sale. Take a listen, the clarity is incredible- it demonstrates how average the rest sounds. However, despite this, The Beatles sound better than The Kinks (up until the 2014 Anthology which has much improved sound) and other bands because of, y'know, EMI studio. And anyway, listening to The Beatles is all about listening to The Beatles, not the quality of the sound.
     
    tages, andrewskyDE, Suncola and 7 others like this.
  16. fogalu

    fogalu There is only one Beethoven

    Location:
    Killarney, Ireland
    And some of the tracks sound like the tape has been played backwards!
     
    DRM, lemonade kid, buddachile and 7 others like this.
  17. dudley07726

    dudley07726 Forum Resident

    Location:
    FLA
    It s their mixing that sucked. Basic tracks like Helter Skelter on A3 sound much better than the released version. Not saying it was a better take. The quality was incredible.
     
    Fullbug likes this.
  18. ralph7109

    ralph7109 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    But how does it compare to other recordings of the day? Specifically compare 1964 - 1966 to other artists of the same period.

    I agree the mixing has always been weak (and I noticed how much better BackTracks and others sounded in the late 1980's), but is it not better than others in the same era?
     
  19. mj_patrick

    mj_patrick Senior Member

    Location:
    Elkhart, IN, USA
    “Sound production is like a bikini. What it reveals is suggestive, but what it conceals is vital.”
    (with apologies to Aaron Levenstein)

    [​IMG]
     
    John54, goodiesguy, vonwegen and 8 others like this.
  20. Cellar Drops

    Cellar Drops Active Member

    [​IMG]
     
  21. sgtmono

    sgtmono Seasoned Member

    Actually that pic of Bardot is to me the visual equivalent of the sound quality of Beatles records. Technically imperfect, but aesthetically gorgeous.
     
  22. RockWizard

    RockWizard Forum Resident

    All the more reason why George Martin was the 5th Beatle. To get that sound, and decipher what they wanted.....magic.
     
    SixtiesGuy and Texastoyz like this.
  23. nikh33

    nikh33 Senior Member

    Location:
    Liverpool, England
    Bardot 'technically imperfect'? In what way??
     
    Man at C&A, andrewskyDE and AJK74 like this.
  24. Dublintown

    Dublintown Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    What makes it all the more curios is the fact that other artists on EMI at the time often sounded better on record than a lot of the early Beatles stuff (e.g. Cliff & The Shadows, The Hollies, Gerry & The Pacemakers etc.)
     
  25. clgoss77

    clgoss77 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Washington, DC
    And here I was hoping this thread would be about Beatles recordings decoded through a SQ quadraphonic matrix decoder!
     
    Mr. Explorer and quadjoe like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine