The Beatles she's leaving home correct speed mono or stereo

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Meddle, Jun 5, 2016.

  1. Meddle

    Meddle Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    waxahachie TX USA
    I've always wondered which mix was the recorded speed the mono or stereo mix?
    In my option it's the stereo mix though y'all are lot more knowledgeable than I am so what do you think?
     
  2. Jim B.

    Jim B. Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
  3. Meddle

    Meddle Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    waxahachie TX USA
    Really? Paul's voice sounds a bit unnaturally high in mono
     
    Vinyl Socks likes this.
  4. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    To my knowledge George Martin slowed it down for the stereo. I always thought the stereo sounded like it was dragging like on a bad tape. I think the mono only sounds unnatural if you're used to the stereo.
     
  5. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    England
    My opinion:

    The vocals were recorded with the tape running fast.

    Mono mixed at that same faster speed, or somewhere thereabouts (= Backing runs fast, vocals correct speed)

    Stereo mixed with tape running at the original speed (= Backing correct speed, but vocals now run slow)

    The stereo vocals sound unnaturally slow to my ears. It has the effect of making Paul sound slightly out of tune in places (...'our baby's gone'...), a common by-product of slowing down (as any pitching discrepancies are exaggerated).
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2016
  6. The original pitch / speed is the stereo version, which was sped-up for mono. The key center for the stereo version is a perfect E major, while in mono it sounds almost in F major (but not quite there).

    Also, this studio backing track without vocals / effects...



    ...shows the real key center: E major, the one in the stereo version
     
    fallbreaks, cmi, perplexed and 12 others like this.
  7. Well, how about that? I always thought the stereo mix was slowed down. The vocals do sound a bit too slow in the stereo version though.

    I think Slane is correct.
     
    Drifter likes this.
  8. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    So it was sped up for mono which Paul preferred, which is why I must have thought it was natural. But still, the stereo vocals really drag. So is either one natural? Mono is sped up, but is stereo originally that slow? Are both mixes altered from an original vocal?
     
  9. Chuckee

    Chuckee Forum Resident

    Location:
    Upstate, NY, USA
    To me stereo always sounded more natural, i heard that first, so maybe it's influencing me.
     
  10. drbryant

    drbryant Forum Resident

    I always thought that the tone of Paul's voice seems unnatural on the stereo so I assumed it was slowed down. But, considering how little time was spent on the stereo mix, I would think that it's more likely that Martin and Emerick would have accidentally forgotten to speed up the tape. It seems unlikely that, in their haste, they would accidentally slow down a track.

    That would make the stereo the correct speed and the mono the artistic decision.
     
  11. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    Yeah, the artistic decision was certainly the mono mix
     
  12. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    England
    I agree, but as I said:

    ...which would mean that for the stereo mix, they simply played back the tape at the original speed. But that was not the correct speed for the vocals.
     
    goodiesguy, Magnus A., Paul H and 5 others like this.
  13. Dinstun

    Dinstun Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tennessee
    I had only heard the stereo version for many years, and always thought the vocals sounded very lethargic and unnatural. Upon first hearing the mono version, it was like "hey, there's Paul singing - where's he been?"

    Anyway, I think you are right about this. As far as I can gather:
    • The strings were recorded to 4-track on Mar 17 at normal 50Hz.
    • Tape reduction was done, and vocals added on Mar 20, with the 4-track running at ~53Hz.
    • The mono mix was done the same day, 4-track at ~53Hz to mono master at 50Hz (strings fast, vocals normal).
    • The stereo mix was done almost a month later, on Apr 17. 4-track at 50Hz to stereo master at 50Hz (strings normal, vocals slow).
     
  14. Gems-A-Bems

    Gems-A-Bems Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Duke City
    They both contain elements that are "incorrectly" and "correctly" pitched. Neither the mono nor the stereo are at the "correct speed".
     
  15. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Stereo of course...
     
    Bingo Bongo likes this.
  16. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    agreed, i always thought it was the stereo that was correct, mono sounds like pinky & perky, however i know many are convinced that the mono was the correct speed.
     
    The Beatles Rock! and Meddle like this.
  17. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    so why was the stereo not speedied up as well ? of course the mono mix was first and as we know ( since mono was still the major selling format in the UK even in 1967 ) the stereo was left to the coats.

    However one of the side effects of the speedied up mono is that distortion in the high registers can be a problem on all but the better conditioned copies.
     
  18. Ern

    Ern Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portugal
    Don't know where the doubt is, Stereo.
    Mono is obviously speeded up.
     
  19. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    you would be amazed, mono only lovers will swear blind that the pinky & perky mono is the correct speed.
     
    The Beatles Rock!, Meddle and Ern like this.
  20. the sands

    the sands Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    I would say stereo. The Sgt. Pepper in mono is the right thing attitude that suddenly appeared with the 2009 reissues is beyond me. Not that I don't appreciate the mono box... But. o_O
     
  21. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    No I have a mono pepper LP from the 80s I'm mono with the same speed as the box
     
  22. Dinstun

    Dinstun Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tennessee
    Or, put another way, that the dopey & lethargic stereo is the incorrect speed. :)

    I think certainly the mono version is the intended version. As stated before, the vocals and the mono mix were done the same day. The stereo mix was a month later.

    The question then becomes why did they speed it up? Did they feel the strings were too slow and sped this up before adding vocals? Or did they add vocals to the strings at the correct speed, but felt both needed to be sped up, changing the vocal character completely?
     
    Drifter and Magnus A. like this.
  23. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida
    I understand mono was sped up but from what? The stereo isn't a normal vocal speed either. It seems at if the vocals were first recorded at a pace not reflected in either final mix.
     
  24. This is not about "correct" or "incorrect" speed / pitch (to me, at least). It's just about the pitch in which the instruments were tuned when the actual recording was made, and how that pitch was altered (up or down), which I already explained in my previous post. Each of us have our own idea of "correct" or "incorrect" depending on the way we perceived both versions.

    BTW, the idea behind raising the original pitch was making Paul McCartney to sound younger.
     
    marcob1963 and Mister Charlie like this.
  25. Dinstun

    Dinstun Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tennessee
    I don't think anyone disputes the strings are sped up on the mono version. But the strings and vocals were recorded on different days (see above). The question is really about whether the vocal is sped up on the mono version.

    Do you have a reference to them wanting to make Paul sound younger for this song?
     

Share This Page