Brian Kehew wrote on Thu, 07 December 2006 09:08 |
The "Recording the Beatles" book will certainly explain much of what you seek, and more. The reviews from the public (search online) have been quite good. Be aware that (a) MOST of the recording was done in Studio Two at EMI: This was the desk built using REDD.47 preamps (and line amps - pay attention to this factor). The Revolution mic pre is the closest available thing to this, as only one EMI desk exists with the originals. (b) Some of the songs on that album were done elsewhere. So, maybe you have found "a sound" that exists more in one's head than in reality. Try making a list of what songs have "that tone" you like, then read about which ones were recorded outside AFTER you make the list. Read about the mixing ideas AFTER you make the list - it might be that you prefer the songs recorded outside of EMI, or that you like the ones with extreme EQ effects....? |
Brian Kehew wrote on Thu, 07 December 2006 04:10 |
I would generally agree that White Album sounds different than Abbey Road: but almost every Beatles album sounds different than the one before it, even! |
Tdstotler wrote on Sun, 14 January 2007 19:49 |
Well with Saville Row you really had three era's of studios in a short time. First you had the Magic Alex studio, if you could call it a studio. Then you had all the mobile gear that was brought in for the Let it Be sessions since Alex's setup was total crap and unusable. Then you had the 'proper' studio afterwards. I dont know exactly what they had gear wise but I have a lot of good promotional pictures that were taken in there around winter 69 that has some good shots of the control room. |
Brian Kehew wrote on Mon, 15 January 2007 13:17 |
I would say "the mic pre" is not responsible for "the sound of the White Album". Especially since they used this mic pre on almost every track since 1964, and they do not sound the same to us. Even the Altec compressors were there, and more etc etc from previous years - not much changed in the gear; it's the WAY they used it. Look closely at the eq done on some tracks (full treble/bass on ALL tracks when mixing.) That would be more significant, as might the use of 1" 8-track 3M vs. 1" 4-track Studer J37. The Revolution mic pre is as close to a clone of the original as we may ever see, and it is expensive for this reason. Other companies may try to make one, but would likely skimp on parts to save $. It would still sound great but likely no one will ever make the exact REDD47 ever again. However, I am still waiting to hear from the Revolution company on equiment I (and others) sent there ages ago with payment - no emails, no returned phone calls. |
Brian Kehew wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 04:16 |
Agreed, in fact, most of the PRE-Beatles Abbey Road music is superior, sonically speaking. |
Quote: |
None of us will ever get the chance to do records that will sound that great. |
vernier wrote on Fri, 23 February 2007 19:06 |
I was so disappointed when the white album came out ..solid-state was the mistake. |
Brian Kehew wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 04:16 |
Agreed, in fact, most of the PRE-Beatles Abbey Road music is superior, sonically speaking. |
Sarusan wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 12:58 |
I think the same is true for the pre-rock recordings done in Hollywood as well: RCA, United and Western, Columbia, etc.. I heard a bunch of my father's records from that era over the holidays (Bobby Darin, Sinatra, Mancini, etc..) and was simultaneously amazed and bummed out. None of us will ever get the chance to do records that will sound that great. |