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

That was certainly true of When I'm 64 for speeding up the vocals to make him seem younger, and I seem to recall they got the speed correct on both mono and stereo for When I'm 64?

 

As I recall, Recording The Beatles pretty clearly states that the vocals are unaltered for the stereo mix; the mono is fast. I'd go leaf through the book to quote it but I'd have to get out of my chair, and the book weighs 50 pounds.

 

To be clear, the assertion isn't really that they were slowed down intentionally for the stereo mix, but rather that they were originally recorded with the tape running fast, with the intentional purpose of speeding up the backing track and pitching up the song. Then, when the stereo mix was done, the tape was played back at normal speed, thus leading to the backing being at its originally recorded pitch and the vocals being lower in pitch. So yes, in effect "slowed down" but only as an artifact of the manner in which they were recorded to begin with, not deliberately.

I think he only sounds like he's "on helium" in the mono when you're used to the stereo. I grew up with the stereo and when I first heard the mono mix it indeed sounded like the vocals were fast as well as the backing, but after some years of listening to both the mono's vocal seems the more natural-sounding of the two. (The backing still sounds fast, of course.)

Again, the suggestion is not really that they were altered for the stereo mix, but rather that an alteration in the tape speed that was done when they were recorded was not duplicated for the stereo mix. In other words, if you play back the tape at normal speed without alteration, that is indeed what the vocals sound like. But they were recorded with the tape sped up, so on straight playback they're actually slower and lower than Paul sang them in the studio.

 

Oh yes, I understand that. That certainly is more plausible, since it seems extremely unlikely the vocals would have been deliberately slowed down for the stereo version. Again, my point though is that the entire reason people are engaging in this sort of speculation in the first place is because of their subjective opinion that the stereo sounds too slow, rather than any direct evidence, right?

 

The stereo version is where you hear Paul's vocal in real time as he performed it. He was purposely singing in a lower pitch and stretched out manner. You HAVE to do that when recording a vocal on something that will be played back at normal speed. The pitch change is only half of what's going on when they vari-speeded vocals. The other half is the need to stretch out the vocal phrasing. Pitch AND Tempo, folks.

The point of vari-speed recording is that it changes the texture of the sound not just the pitch. It's not all about pitch.

It's possible the stereo mix is a little bit slowed down but not a lot slowed down. As people have said the true vocal performance speed maybe in the middle but I would say the stereo version is closer to how he performed it.

 

"Recording The Beatles" does state that varispeed was used at 53Hz to mix "She's Leaving Home" in mono but not stereo, as has already been discussed. It does not say whether or not varispeed was used when the vocals were recorded earlier that day. At least not that I can find.

They also discuss "When I'm Sixty-Four" and the suggestion that Paul wanted to sound younger, but do not confirm this. They offer that he may have "simply decided the song was too slow when hearing the mix played back".

 

So do you think Paul's voice sounds natural on the stereo or do you find that it sounds a bit off as well?

 

I didn’t see a Poll, but I prefer the Stereo version.....

 

Not sure why the most-skipped song on the album fell through the cracks when mastered for stereo.

 

Do you mean that when the vocals were recorded, the backing track was being played at its native recorded speed, and it was after the vocal was recorded that everything was sped up? If see what you're saying here, it sounds like it might also be a plausible scenario, except it makes me wonder why they'd do it like that when it would seem simpler and easier to just speed up the pre-recorded backing track and sing over it normally, achieving the same result with less effort?

Also, if this be in fact the case, then it still means the intent of speeding up the final result was conceived before the vocal was laid down, and the performance was delivered with that result in mind. If McCartney calculatedly altered his vocal performance as you suggest so that it would sound the way he wanted when sped up, then it seems to me the mono represents his artistic vision moreso than the stereo, even if it would mean by the same token that the stereo was technically more representative of what he actually sang in the moment.

 

Gosh, but that sounds lovely.

 

I don't know what speed he sang to, doesn't matter. Paul would have sang in pitch with the track regardless if it was flat or sharp. You can sing in absolute pitch or relative pitch. You gotta remember vocal vari-speed is not necessarily about speeding things up it's about changing pitch and texture. If you wanted to speed something up then you just record normally and speed it up after but that would sound weird like the mono "Don't Pass Me By". I do think the mono "She's Leaving Home" is too fast.

I think Paul liked BOTH versions.

At this point (1967) they were consciously making the stereo mixes/edits different from the mono mixes/edits. The mono and stereo versions of "Helter Skelter" were deliberately different. It wasn't sloppy editing or mixing.

The altering (meaning stretching out the phrasing) HAS to be done. If you are singing to a slowed backing track then you HAVE to elongate the phrasing. If you slowed down every other vari-speeded vocal the phrasing would be stretched out also. Again, pitch and/or tempo have to be changed while doing the vocal because otherwise it would sound like the Chipmunks. The guy that did those also had to greatly stretch out the phrasing on the songs.

 

@Lance Hall, what reason is there to think that the vocal itself would have been vari-speeded separately from the backing track? It seems that the backing track was recorded at the speed and pitch heard on the stereo mix and sped up for the mono (which was mixed first, on the same day the vocal was recorded), with the contention of others being that Paul sang the vocal TO this already sped-up backing, in which case it would not need to be drawn out, he would just sing it normally as if the backing had been played at that speed and pitch to begin with. The contention seems to also be that then the whole mono mix might have been further sped up slightly, but only very little, whereas the stereo mix wasn't vari-speeded at all. I think I must either be misunderstanding what you are saying, or what others are. (And for the record, I don't know for a fact what happened, just in case that wasn't obvious and really needed to be stated. I'm trying to understand the arguments of each side rather than take one.)

 

it always sounded " more " natural to me but i do think there is something in the argument about which version your heard first and most often.

I will certainly accept that it may be understandable for those who heard the mono first think the stereo slowed down but i do struggle to understand those who heard the stereo first who now think the mono sounds natural.

I did not hear the mono version until many years after the stereo and although i have heard the mono many many times since to me it still seems that the mono is on helium and the stereo Paul's naturally pitched vocal.

However i do not deny that because the stereo was what i was originally used to that it could be slowed down but to me it still sounds natural. Having said all of that i still find the mono far less natural regardless and i play test far more mono albums than the stereo and these days if anything the mono is the variant i am more familiar with.

 

regardless of being sped up or not the mono mix was clearly the one they signed off on so must have been happy with it, even if i and some others find it very unsatisfactory compared to the stereo.

What interests me is why the different treatment for the stereo ? Was this for a deliberate technical reason ? i have mentioned previously the the mono can distort on the high registers on all but the best playing mono copies, could this distortion have become more of an obvious problem when mixed for stereo ? This is just supposition on my part but the brown coats may have had a good reason for the different speeds as its hard to explain otherwise. Or maybe they just simply thought it sounded better ?

The Beatles got their say on how the mono was laid to disc but in leaving it to the brown coats for the stereo maybe the engineers felt they had cart blanche to correct any less satisfactory elements for the stereo, like potential distortion on SLH and the jump to the reprise which i have said is awful in the mono but seamless in the stereo.

 

I think the 'stereo vocal' just sounds a bit too out-of -tune. If Paul had recorded it like that (and it's his natural voice), would they have been happy with the performance?

But if the vocal was recorded at 53Hz (and monitored and mixed for mono at that speed), it would have sounded fine in the studio at the time (as it does on the mono).

Later on I might vari-speed (a semitone either way) some non-altered Paul vocals (maybe 'Eleanor Rigby' or something) and see how the timbre compares to SLH.

 

Well, if the theory that the vocals were recorded at 53Hz is correct (and then the mono mix was made at that speed), the stereo mix was simply made with the tape running at normal (50Hz) speed, causing the vocals to be slowed down.

 

My guess is that the backing track was considered to slightly drag after it had been recorded.

Short of doing it again, the only around that was to speed it up - though this would mean that the vocals would now have to be recorded in a higher key (nearer to F rather than the original E) if they were going to sound natural. Since Paul has to reach some very high notes on the chorus, maybe they compromised and recorded the vocals at somewhere around 52Hz so he could still hit the high notes cleanly, and then gave the track the other 1Hz push in the mono mix to bring it up to the desired speed.

And then later on, the tape was just played back at normal speed for the stereo mix.

 

thats possibly the how ( for those that believe that the mono vocal is at its natural speed ) but what's the why ?

 

Why what? Why did they play it back at normal speed for the stereo mix?

Because most tapes were played back at normal speed.

 

it may to you but it does not sound fine to me on the mono at all

 

so your contention is the stereo was simply in error ?

 

Yes, the tape threaded up and played back at normal speed, i.e. standard procedure.

 

That's my guess too. The stereo mix was done a month later after the vocals recording/mono mixing session.
Lewisohn does not mention any vari speed at all, so I assume that it's not in the studio documentation. So when the time for the stereo mix came a month later they just played back the tape at normal speed and that was it.

To me, neither stereo nor mono vocals don't sound to be at the recorded speed. The mono's are closer to it though.
When I play it back in DAW I have to slow down the mono vocals by 0.2 of a half-step to get them sound natural. The stereo ones need speeding up by 0.6 of a half-step.

Ondra

 

Yes, I agree with all of that.

As I said, speeding up the backing track prior to recording the vocals would have required Paul to sing the song in a higher key. Maybe 53Hz was just a bit too high for him on the chorus, so the tape was only sped up to around 52Hz, but then mixed to mono at 53Hz causing the vocals to be very slightly sped up on the mono mix.