Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ryan Silva]

   Well here it is: I just bought a new pair of near fields, and there very shiny and very expensive (to me), and I have been listing to all my old favorites through them when I came to 'Rubber Soul'. I have wallowing in this beautiful sweet spot of new gar bliss and wham! Questionably my favorite 'Beatle' album popped my bubble. No center at all.

 I assume a fair amount of you folk are already aware of this, so no new news here, but that brings me to my question. I cant say I have ever heard an album paned so extreme before or since. I understand that it was an attempt to get more tracks, and that The Beatles did a fair amount of hard panning on 'Revolver' and so on down the line. But never to such an extreme. Was there a string of early stereo records that did this very same thing? And why haven’t I heard them?

There are only so many hours a day to listen to music. To bad

[Barry Hufker]

Bill Porter, legendary recording engineer out of Nashville, recorded *many* tracks at RCA Studio B with Chet Atkins (and others) as producer(s).

Bill's console had no pan pot.  The inputs were switched left or right, 1 or 2.  Therefore no center.  I am sure other people were in that same situation.  Even here in St. Louis, at late as 1968 there wasn't a recording console with a pan pot.  Channel placement was switched, Left, Center, Right.

Hardcore Beatles people will probably say something different but if I remember correctly, the "stereo" albums you describe were really never meant to be stereo.  George Martin would record in a manner such that the entire rhythm section might be on one track, with a track for lead vocal, a track for backing vocals, etc.  By combining some of these tracks in a "bounce," he then had more tracks.  As I understand, George Martin intended the tracks to be summed and released on a monaural disc.  At some point someone realized the tracks were separated enough that they could be two channel mono and called "stereo."

If you want a great education, listen to either the left or right track of any song.  It's a revelation.  In fact, the original SGT. Pepper was mixed and released in mono.  To my mind, that remains the definitive mix and they one all of us (of a certain age) remember when the chicken turned into a guitar.


Barry

[vernier]

Those records are so much more enjoyable to listen to ..it's like mini-surround. "Rovolver" is another, drums on one side, bass on another ..leaves more room for the all-important vocal.

[Ryan Silva]

[quote title= As I understand, George Martin intended the tracks to be summed and released on a monaural disc.  [/quote]

Wonder what he thinks of that? Would have bugged me. But hey it's F%#@ing 'Rubber Soul' what the hell are going to do, right?

[Ronny]

Tonedrone wrote on Wed, 12 October 2005 23:13

Well here it is: I just bought a new pair of near fields, and there very shiny and very expensive (to me), and I have been listing to all my old favorites through them when I came to 'Rubber Soul'. I have wallowing in this beautiful sweet spot of new gar bliss and wham! Questionably my favorite 'Beatle' album popped my bubble. No center at all.  I assume a fair amount of you folk are already aware of this, so no new news here, but that brings me to my question. I cant say I have ever heard an album paned so extreme before or since. I understand that it was an attempt to get more tracks, and that The Beatles did a fair amount of hard panning on 'Revolver' and so on down the line. But never to such an extreme. Was there a string of early stereo records that did this very same thing? And why haven’t I heard them? There are only so many hours a day to listen to music. To bad

Center pan both L and R, or slightly left and right of center. There were a lot of albums including a couple other early Beatle albums that had the US stereo versions panned hard. Some songs  with all instruments panned one side and all vox panned the other. Some where lead voc is panned hard, bgv's are panned hard the other way, like "Michelle", lead and percs on the right, bgv's and bass on the left. A general mishmash. Radio was mostly AM mono back than. Stereo hadn't been out for too long, first stereo record I remember seeing was Teresa Brewer's "I'm Sorry", which came out just a couple years before the Beatles. There's supposed to be some reason why the Beatles records were mixed that way which I can't recall, but I remember that there were a lot of records being released where the engineers were still experimenting with the stereo playback field at that time. As long as you are in the sweet spot it's not too bad. Try panning towards center at 11 and 1 o'clock, see if you don't feel what you are missing coming back.  

[compasspnt]

A lot of this has been discussed before several times, including on this thread

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/4276/0/0/6 490/?SQ=e9eb3113728a0aacbc6a417e0c4f8343

But as I understand it, Sgt. Pepper was the first album which was actually MIXED for stereo, and that an afterthought.  The Beatles themselves were around for the mono mix, making decisions and putting-in in-putting.  Then when the mono was done, they left, and an engineer just sort of duplicated the mono, panned out a bit.  Still not a truly serious stereo mix.  SP sounds MUCH better in the mono version, if you can find it.

[vernier]

They tracked thinking it was gonna end up mono, and many desks didn't have pan-pots either, so, when the record company wanted stereo versions, hard panned mixes is all they could accomplish. To me though, it sounds totally superior ..like the musicians are in your room playing.

[Ronny]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 00:23

Bill Porter, legendary recording engineer out of Nashville, recorded *many* tracks at RCA Studio B with Chet Atkins (and others) as producer(s). Bill's console had no pan pot.  The inputs were switched left or right, 1 or 2.  Therefore no center.  I am sure other people were in that same situation.  Even here in St. Louis, at late as 1968 there wasn't a recording console with a pan pot.  Channel placement was switched, Left, Center, Right. Hardcore Beatles people will probably say something different but if I remember correctly, the "stereo" albums you describe were really never meant to be stereo.  George Martin would record in a manner such that the entire rhythm section might be on one track, with a track for lead vocal, a track for backing vocals, etc.  By combining some of these tracks in a "bounce," he then had more tracks.  As I understand, George Martin intended the tracks to be summed and released on a monaural disc.  At some point someone realized the tracks were separated enough that they could be two channel mono and called "stereo." If you want a great education, listen to either the left or right track of any song.  It's a revelation.  In fact, the original SGT. Pepper was mixed and released in mono.  To my mind, that remains the definitive mix and they one all of us (of a certain age) remember when the chicken turned into a guitar. Barry

Oops, I should have read back a few posts. That's interesting Barry.

[Ronny]

vernier wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 00:48

They tracked thinking it was gonna end up mono, and many desks didn't have pan-pots either, so, when the record company wanted stereo versions, hard panned mixes is all they could accomplish. To me though, it sounds totally superior ..like the musicians are in your room playing.

When stereophonics came out it was a revelation. It emulated being in the middle of the band when they played. Think of never hearing anything but mono all your life and than hearing stereo for the first time with the band surrounding you. It was simply marvelous at the time. Is it Ella or is it tape?    

[vernier]

Stereo-spread has phase problems. Mono, or hard-panned dual-mono much better.

[Ronny]

vernier wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 01:15

Stereo-spread has phase problems. Mono, or hard-panned dual-mono much better.

Listening to a live band there is phasing. I wouldn't call it a problem. Without some phasing things get to sounding really hokey and unnatural. Don't believe me, phase align 10 mic'd drum tracks and see how much it sucks compared to the natural phasing that you hear with a live drummer, or when the drum tracks aren't all delayed to match the distance between the mics. One reason why electronic drums don't sound real is because they lack natural phase from a real set that has distance between each drum and the ear, or between each mic on each drum. Phasing is a natural part of real sound, you are going to get it anytime that you have more than one musician and more and more of it with each live instrument added. Yes, too much phasing is not good, but none at all isn't much better.  

[vernier]

Phase problems became out of control starting in the 70's. Tracks were more pure before then. Giant consoles full of eq and pan pots was a big part of the problem, and using multible mics on everything was another part, and finally, the giant stereo spread ..dozens of skinny tracks, all to make up for what used to be a few really rich tracks. I didn't like it when it started happening, and don't care for it now.

[maxdimario]

Quote:

SP sounds MUCH better in the mono version, if you can find it.

I've got it!

The bass guitar is louder, and there are no gaps between songs on the vinyl, some of the fades are different.

the stereo mixes were done as an afterthought, and the Beatles didn't like the effect of stereo.

plus as is customary for any stereo vinyl recording, too much bass frequency in the stereo component is unwanted, which may be why that stereo album is so bass-shy.
Mono vinyl is the best, fidelity-wise.

another thing about the beatles recordings is that they added a lot of highs on the master later on.

a lot of the early 60's records are not as trebly.


as far as stereo vs. mono, I think you'll find that the percussion and rhythm section sounds tighter and more driving when it comes out of ONE speaker, or both if you are precisely in the middle and early reflections are the same on both channels.

[Barry Hufker]

Just a quick observation made to me about stereo: I was recording a jazz group and one of the members said to me. "Stereo is the worst thing that ever happened to recording." Puzzled, I asked why.  He said, "As a band we have worked our whole lives to play as one instrument.  Stereo reminds everyone we're not."

I thought that was terribly profound.

Barry

[Gary Flanigan]

compasspnt wrote on Thu, 13 October 2005 05:44

But as I understand it, Sgt. Pepper was the first album which was actually MIXED for stereo, and that an afterthought.  The Beatles themselves were around for the mono mix, making decisions and putting-in in-putting.  Then when the mono was done, they left, and an engineer just sort of duplicated the mono, panned out a bit.  Still not a truly serious stereo mix.  SP sounds MUCH better in the mono version, if you can find it.

Has there ever been a CD release of the mono SP mix?