Sound quality on Beatles recordings

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

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

    sgtmono Seasoned Member

    I was referring more to the qualities of the photo. It's got that rich "technicolor" look to it, which is not 100% true-to-life, but it IS pleasing to look at.
    And Bardot is posed in such a way as to make the most of her features (I will not get any more specific). A more revealing photo might not be as intriguing to the eye.

    So, The Beatles recordings are distorted, have limited frequency response, etc. So what? They sound rich and full of life. A lot of their tracks are straight-up ear candy!

    The OP has a great point, listen to some Kinks or Stones from the same era, the sound quality is comparatively dreadful (but also comes with it's own unique charms.)
     
  2. Chapman

    Chapman Member

    The Beatles sound more of less of their time. Not exactly hidef but no big deal.
     
  3. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Every time some silly writes SQ, all I can think of is SQ Quad as well. These youngsters have no idea how confusing using SQ can be.
     
  4. moople72

    moople72 Forum Resident

    Location:
    KC
    I like the sound of Please Please Me (most of it) and Beatles for Sale in stereo and Let It Be.
    All the others leave me thinking there's some great odd pressing out there that might offer an upgrade in sound.
    I do remember thinking the 2009 stereo CD of With the Beatles offering a nice upgrade.
     
    ralph7109 likes this.
  5. ralph7109

    ralph7109 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    I always felt the sonics went backward for a bit after Please Please Me.

    Maybe after they hit the big time it, they had to mirror the more muffled sonics of the day.

    I will say Sgt Pepper (reprise) and the Ballad of John&Yoko are top notch sounding-wise.
     
  6. George P

    George P Notable Member

    Location:
    NYC
    Acronyms are definitely age-sensitive. When you posted BB earlier in the thread, I didn't know what you meant until someone later posted Bardot.
     
    Billy Infinity and JimC like this.
  7. CDmp3

    CDmp3 Forum Resident

    Location:
    America
  8. dudley07726

    dudley07726 Forum Resident

    Location:
    FLA
    Yes, you are correct. Early Stones, Kinks, Moody Blues (Go Now) sound like garbage. Beatles sound way better.
     
    jricc likes this.
  9. moople72

    moople72 Forum Resident

    Location:
    KC
    Au contraire----some of the early Stones stuff is awesome in terms of sound quality (Chess studios):

     
  10. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Senior Member

    Yes, but damn little was recorded Chess. Most of it was at Olympic and RCA. The RCA in particular...ugh. Think Surrealistic Pillow.
     
  11. Schoolmaster Bones

    Schoolmaster Bones Poe's Lawyer

    Location:
    ‎The Midwest
    This is how I know I'm not an audiophile.
     
    Devon, Mr. Explorer, Turmatic and 6 others like this.
  12. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Senior Member

    In the early days The Kinks, The Who and The Yardbirds all shared Shel Talmy's extra tinny production sounds. A real shame.
     
  13. AppleCorp3

    AppleCorp3 Forum Resident

    I think a lot of it is the mixing style and technology limitations at the time too.

    With a lot of the various remixes and outtakes it's clear that the recordings were committed to tape well (IMHO).

    When they had to start mixing that's when things sort of went off.

    Someone mentioned "Honey Don't" as a great expel and I totally agree. There's lots of others too.
     
    Tommyboy likes this.
  14. RingoStarr39

    RingoStarr39 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Baden, PA
    I think one thing that people confuse a lot with vintage recordings is recording and mixing.
    Lots of albums/songs that sound terrible do because they were mixed/mastered poorly, not because the recording was bad.
    Though of course there are some like the early Rolling Stones that were just recorded bad.
     
  15. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    So, the OP describes the KINKS records as "muddy" (one of his reasons for starting this thread) and the guy below describes the KINKS records as "tinny."

    So are they tinny or muddy? You can't have it both ways, fellows!
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  16. meanoldman

    meanoldman Forum Resident

    Location:
    South Park, CO
    Norman Smith has never been given the credit he deserves as The Beatles' first recording engineer. I wish he had remained throughout their career.
     
    BillyBoy, warewolf95 and Dinstun like this.
  17. AppleCorp3

    AppleCorp3 Forum Resident

    Every time someone mentions something is "tinny" I can't help but think of that Monty Python sketch.

    "Caribou goooooone..."

    Back to the thread!
     
    vinnie likes this.
  18. leeroy jenkins

    leeroy jenkins Forum Resident

    Location:
    The United States
    I'm with the OP. I always wondered why their records sounded so much better than others made in the same era.
     
  19. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Senior Member

    If I recall they go both ways -- case by case and track by track. The 'tin' I hear in a lot of those isn't really the highs but more the upper mids...but truth be told I haven't listened to any of the early stuff ('64~'66) in a while...
     
  20. tubesandvinyl

    tubesandvinyl Forum Resident

    I just played WTB from the mono vinyl box. I love the Beatles, but this recording is horrible. Shouty midrange, totally anemic bass. I know they didn't shave off during the new cutting, so I guess the original recording sounds bad. Very unfortunate, considering how nice Rubber Soul sounds.
     
    RonBaker and Tommyboy like this.
  21. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    And if you think WITH THE BEATLES sounds bad on your good stereo, imagine hearing it over those screechy Altec monitors they had in Studio 2 at EMI. It must have been so over the top distorted that our ears would have bled. Yet, they wanted it to sound like that. Why, I'll never be able to figure out.

    Johanna Martzy EMI master tapes don't sound like that. So I guess they did it on purpose!:eek:
     
  22. tubesandvinyl

    tubesandvinyl Forum Resident

    Steve, I agree, it must have sounded screechy painful in Studio 2!

    It's so unfortunate "they" wanted that midrangey screamy shout on WTB. I guess we'll never know if it was NS or GM?

    I'm spinning BFS mono, and while far from ideal, it sounds a mile better than WTB. I'll Follow the Sun and Honey Don't sound quite nice, though other songs still have that screamy shout.
     
  23. AFOS

    AFOS Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Brisbane,Australia
    Agree completely - George Martin was essential. Another example is the sped up piano (to sound like a harpsichord) in "In My Life"
     
  24. AppleCorp3

    AppleCorp3 Forum Resident

    And they certainly weren't recorded like that! Well, some of it I'm sure is the result of numerous overdubs to two track tape (is "tape saturation" the term I'm looking for?) but the compression I believe was added in the later stages of production. It stripped the bass clean out. The extant outtakes, which include a few takes of Hold Me Tight and Don't Bother Me have a much improved bottom end.

    I hope there is a master out there that sounds more like the session tapes so a remix can bring back some of Paul's bass!
     
  25. Mal

    Mal Phorum Physicist

    It is the sound of Beatlemania - lightning in a bottle :thumbsup:

     
    royzak2000 and ohnothimagen like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine