Panning and reverb in early Beatles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fidelity Castro
  • Start date Start date
F

Fidelity Castro

New member
I recently heard a Soviet Beatles compilation (LP) called "A Taste of Honey." It was released in 1985 (I guess after the fall of communist Russia) but featured all early tracks (pre-1965).

The title song "A Taste of Honey" and a couple of others like "It Won't be Long" were mixed in a really surprising way:

PANNING
All the vocals - lead, backing, everything - were panned completely to the right, while the drums were completely left. What a strange but beautiful mix! I was wondering, does anyone know if this is how these songs were originally mixed? Or have they been remixed for this release? I don't have any early Beatles albums so I can't check.. and I assume any Beatles you buy on CD now is remixed anyway. Is it possible several mixes were produced back when the song was released (some mono / some stereo)?

REVERB
I was also astounded at how saturated in reverb the vocals are on these songs (particularly A Taste of Honey). I'd love to know the type of reverb it is / how it was applied / at what stage of recording etc. if anyone has any info. It almost sounds like guitar amp reverb, but perhaps it is the Abbey Road echo chamber? I've never heard anything like it. Does anyone know much about reverb techniques in the early 60s? Or specifically on this song?

many thanks
 
Not too sure about the reverb thing, but I think they were originally in mono, and then when stereo came along they just panned a bunch of stuff and rereleased it. I could be wrong though.
 
Alot of Beatles tunes were mixed that way. Listen to "In MY Life", "Hey Bulldog" and many more. I'm pretty sure, like Legion says, they were never really meant for stereo when first recorded.
 
Fidelity Castro said:
I recently heard a Soviet Beatles compilation (LP) called "A Taste of Honey." It was released in 1985 (I guess after the fall of communist Russia)
Click to expand...
You got an "F" in History, didn't you? ;) :D

There's a new book coming out this month that looks to be the ultimate resource on Beatles recording techniques and gear. Take a look at www.recordingthebeatles.com. And for an insight on how they actually did overdubbing on two-track tape, take a look at http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/1963ProductionPreview.pdf

G.
 
Last edited:
i don't have anything to add besides, i feel like listening to some beatles right now.


she's leaving home most likely. i love the strings
 
legionserial said:
Not too sure about the reverb thing, but I think they were originally in mono, and then when stereo came along they just panned a bunch of stuff and rereleased it. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...
They were in mono originally. Everything before Rubber Soul I believe. The American pressings were done in "simulated stereo" lol.

I have original Parlophone pressings and the mono mixes are so much better it's astounding ..... hard to believe actually. In fact, I collected them (I'm a vinylphile ..... please don't start :) ) but I never played them thinking that mono couldn't be better than stereo. But a friend wanted some CD copies and when I listened to them while making the CDs I was freakin' amazed how much better those mixes were.
 
Lt. Bob said:
They were in mono originally. Everything before Rubber Soul I believe. The American pressings were done in "simulated stereo" lol.

I have original Parlophone pressings and the mono mixes are so much better it's astounding ..... hard to believe actually. In fact, I collected them (I'm a vinylphile ..... please don't start :) ) but I never played them thinking that mono couldn't be better than stereo. But a friend wanted some CD copies and when I listened to them while making the CDs I was freakin' amazed how much better those mixes were.
Click to expand...

Were you just making CD copies of the mono recordings from the vinyl? Or comparing the original mono mix to remixed stereo versions?
 
A common problem with CD re-releases of vinyl is that they often "digitally re-mix" or "digitally re-master" the originals. Often times this sounds a lot better on paper than it does over the ol' loudspeakers. Just because something is re-done does not mean that it was necessarily re-done better. You usually don't have George Martin or Alan Parsons or even somebody of near that caliber doing the "re-", and the results often suck.

And when they don't purposely "re-" anything, they often (apparently) pay little attention to even obvious stuff like levels, EQ and so forth. The "digital copy" is far worse than the old analog original. Not because of digital vs. analog or anything like that. Sometimes it might be that the masters have degraded and they just are not bothering to budget for extensive remastering restroation, sometimes its just because the CD ME does a sloppy job.

Just as one of many, many examples, I have a 2-volume CD compilation of Ray Charles stuff that just sounds absolutely horrible compared to the same recordings as released on original vinyl. The mastering engineer on that CD project definitely phoned in that job...in fact half the songs sound like they were recorded over the telephone :rolleyes: .

G.
 
RAK said:
Were you just making CD copies of the mono recordings from the vinyl? Or comparing the original mono mix to remixed stereo versions?
Click to expand...

well the only mixes I'd ever heard in my life were the remixed simulated stereo versions. In the US that was the overwhelming available version. You could get the monos but most of us heard them in the phony stereo.
Now the Anthology series are mixed great ..... but the old "stereo" versions don't hold up to the old monos.
 
I believe George Martin actually did some of those stereo remixes himself . Another example of extreme panning is "Taxman" off of Revolver - bass and drums in one channel, vocals in another.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
You got an "F" in History, didn't you? ;) :D
Click to expand...

Um, yes I did. Is it that obvious?

Thank you for the link, Glen. The book looks great.

If anyone's interested, another page on that site - http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/RS106-FilterExcerpt.pdf - is interesting from the reverb point of view. Talks about a band pass filter that was used in conjunction with the echo chamber at Abbey Road, which indicates to me the reverb I heard was almost certainly the echo-chamber.

Well, back to the Russian history books with me. :o
 
There is a book from Mark Lewisohn that came out in 1988 called The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions that outlines track sheets and recording notes. Also "Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles" by Geoff Emerick himself. The http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/ link didn't work when I tried, maybe it's the same book.

Geoff is a f****ing genius.
 
masteringhouse said:
The http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/ link didn't work when I tried, maybe it's the same book.
Click to expand...
I just tried it again, Tom. Works OK over here.

It's not the same book, but it does look pretty detailed and authorative. And Mark Lewishon co-wrote the forward.

Latest update on that site says the book is shipping next week and that they are taking orders now.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I just tried it again, Tom. Works OK over here.

It's not the same book, but it does look pretty detailed and authorative. And Mark Lewishon co-wrote the forward.

Latest update on that site says the book is shipping next week and that they are taking orders now.

G.
Click to expand...

Ah, works now. Looks very impressive!
 
All the vocals - lead, backing, everything - were panned completely to the right, while the drums were completely left.
Click to expand...

belive it or not, this panning technique was used a lot back in the day...and still is

i was rocking the 1st black sabbath album the other day, and noticed that on most of the tracks, the drums are to one side, bass on the other, guitar on both, and ozzy's down the center

the 1st queens of the stone age album also has a few parts where the drum mix comes entirely from the right channel, while the guitar/bass noodle around in the left - it's a great way to give some spatial funkiness to instrumental passages and the like
 
I'm really not sure if this is correct or not, but I heard alot of the stuff done old days were done on really limited hardware.

Apparently when stereo mixers first came out the were very simple, they did not have any panning pots. Just simple switches that channel sound either hard left, hard centre or hard right.

Is this true? Not sure if this has anything to do with the beatles thing, but seems like a plausible explanation why everything may sound like its hard pan mix wise.

All the reverb/echo was done by playing two copys of a tape a slight different timing. Isn't John Lennon credit with inventing these sound effect techniques?

First flanging effects were done similarly to tape echo, except while the first tape machine ran at normal speed, someone would just touch the tape wheel of the second tape machine at faster speed. Letting it speed up and down creating a flanging effect.

The art of mixing has come a long way since then.
 
They didn't have variable pan pots in those days.

...And Eddie Kramer had a lot more to do with tape flanging than most people know him for.
 
I was listening to Beatles Rubber Soul yesterday

and was thinking the same thing. I was pretty amazed at how bold they were in panning drums to one side and vocals to th eother etc. It all sounds so great too. You wouldn't think that being so over the top could so completely ... normal. If you aren't paying attention you probably would never even notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top