what type of Reel to reel did the Beatles use???

[MartyMcFly]

Does anyone know what type or model of machine the Beatles Used? Im pretty sure most of the time it was a Studer. Mainly Im looking at what they were using from Sgt Pepper onward.
I was watching the anthology bonus material and George Martin took out a copy of "A day in the Life" he said that it was a 4 track but that he didnt need to do much balancing as what he was playing was just 2 tracks. He said it was on 1 Inch tape. Damn! No wonder the sound quality was so clear on some of those recordings.
But anyways...Does anyone know just what model they were using from sgt pepper on? i know that during The White Album (who knew the beatles were racists) they started using 8-track...
But Im interested in was sgt pepper 4 track on 1 inch tape or 2 inch tape was TWA 8-track on 2 inch tape and what model was it...

 

[Tim Gillett]

I'm pretty sure the Beatles used the Studer J37 (4 tracks on 1") for Sgt Pepper. Apparently a very common studio machine throughout Europe at that time. Just type in "Studer J37" and you get a number of good sites and pictures.

cheers Tim.

 

[jpmorris]

I'm pretty sure the Beatles used the Studer J37 (4 tracks on 1") for Sgt Pepper.

More likely they used EMI-built decks.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I checked again. For Sgt Pepper, they used TWO Studer J37's. The early recordings were on EMI mono or stereo machines and the later 8 track was a 3M.

Cheers Tim.

 

[SteveM]

Yeah, the decks were J37s and the console was EMI built, named Redd. The 2 track they used was the BTR2. Which was also EMI built.

 

[MartyMcFly]

And to think I had some idiot try to tell me that they recorded with a TEAC 3440. Dont worry i didnt even come close to believeing him...He was trying to sell me one saying that they were way better than a Tascam 38-8 because 4 tracks is all anyone ever needs. Thats what the beatles used (the Teac 3440). I told him that yeah but the Beatles were 4 people and I am only 1.
Thanks for the info...

 

[Flangerhans]

I would guess that it is far more important to have Sir George at the helm, with Geoff Emerick working the knobs, than to use the same equipment. Not to mention having Beatles doing the instrumental and vocal work.
Really, the gear used at that time was good, but the stuff we have access to today even in the smallest studios is less noisy, more powerful, and easier to use for the most part. My own opinion is that the technology peaked about 1974, but a good argument can be made that our modern goodies are the best in the history of recorded music. This would leave the responsibility for the lifeless b.s. on the radio today squarely on the shoulders of the meat puppets writing, playing, and recording it, not on the fine equipment it is recorded upon.

 

[evm1024]

And to think I had some idiot try to tell me that they recorded with a TEAC 3440. Dont worry i didnt even come close to believeing him...He was trying to sell me one saying that they were way better than a Tascam 38-8 because 4 tracks is all anyone ever needs. Thats what the beatles used (the Teac 3440). I told him that yeah but the Beatles were 4 people and I am only 1.
Thanks for the info...

That is an urban legend. I've heard it told that they used a 3340 more than once. I suspect that it was known that they used a 4 track and that the 3340 was the only well known (to the general public) 4 track.

 

[MCI2424]

That is an urban legend. I've heard it told that they used a 3340 more than once. I suspect that it was known that they used a 4 track and that the 3340 was the only well known (to the general public) 4 track.

That line was used to sell Tascam 3440s originally. The line would tell the reader how the Beatles used JUST a 4-track tape machine for Sgt Pepper's and then touted that the Tascam was more than up to the task.

Generally true. The Tascam 3440 was a 4-track AND Sgt.Pepper's WAS done on a 4-track.

No real ouright lies EXCEPT people took the leap of faith and filled in the blanks that the Beatle's must have used a 3440.


Too bad people didn't know that the 3440 was not made until 1975-6. A few years after the Beatles.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Too bad people didn't know that the 3440 was not made until 1975-6. A few years after the Beatles.

I knew that...I just didnt want to argue with the idiot...

 

[Good Friend]

I would guess that it is far more important to have Sir George at the helm, with Geoff Emerick working the knobs, than to use the same equipment. Not to mention having Beatles doing the instrumental and vocal work.
Really, the gear used at that time was good, but the stuff we have access to today even in the smallest studios is less noisy, more powerful, and easier to use for the most part. My own opinion is that the technology peaked about 1974, but a good argument can be made that our modern goodies are the best in the history of recorded music. This would leave the responsibility for the lifeless b.s. on the radio today squarely on the shoulders of the meat puppets writing, playing, and recording it, not on the fine equipment it is recorded upon.

GREATEST POST EVER

 

[A Reel Person]

Fostex trotted out the same imagery when it introduced the X-15!

Hey,... 4-tracks is all you need. The Beatles did Sgt. Pepper on a 4-track!

 

[themaddog]

Wait...
You mean the Beatles didn't record digitally? I heard they used the first 4 tracks of an MD8.

-MD

 

[SteveM]

I would guess that it is far more important to have Sir George at the helm, with Geoff Emerick working the knobs, than to use the same equipment. Not to mention having Beatles doing the instrumental and vocal work.
Really, the gear used at that time was good, but the stuff we have access to today even in the smallest studios is less noisy, more powerful, and easier to use for the most part. My own opinion is that the technology peaked about 1974, but a good argument can be made that our modern goodies are the best in the history of recorded music. This would leave the responsibility for the lifeless b.s. on the radio today squarely on the shoulders of the meat puppets writing, playing, and recording it, not on the fine equipment it is recorded upon.

Though I agree with you about the improvement in sound with the decks from the seventies, a certain element was lost when they went to solid state mixing consoles. When the Beatles were doing Abby Road Ringo was said to have complained that his drum sound had lost the explosive sound it used to have. I can imagine how that might have been. The sound became a little more flatter.

 

[jpmorris]

Though I agree with you about the improvement in sound with the decks from the seventies, a certain element was lost when they went to solid state mixing consoles. When the Beatles were doing Abby Road Ringo was said to have complained that his drum sound had lost the explosive sound it used to have. I can imagine how that might have been. The sound became a little more flatter.

I noticed that a number of recordings around the 1968-1971 era had a very particular drum sound. Around 1972 it vanished, and it might simply have been a matter of fashion but I do wonder if it was because they retired the valve consoles around that time.

It's a strange, compressed sound. "In The Court of the Crimson King" by King Crimson is the one which I always think of, but a similar sound also appears in 'Pantagruel's Nativity' by Gentle Giant, 'Atom Heart Mother' by Pink Floyd and the songs on 'H to He who am the only one' by Van Der Graaf Generator.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that valves have a natural tendency to compress slightly a'la tape saturation, but I could be wrong...

 

[MartyMcFly]

I would love to record 4 tracks onto 1 " tape. Just think of the frequency response...1/4" per track...heck most semi-pro/home model recorders today use 1/4" for 4 tracks.
Although you can argue that The Beatles sounded great...well they did. Compared to other bands at the time they were limited. EMI Studios/Abbey Road was said to be about 5-10 years behind all the other studios around at the time. When other bands were using 8 track they were just starting to use 4 track.
I really wish they'd go back and really remix and remaster from scratch. Something similar to what was done on "Love" but just the standard albums. No Mash-ups. Thats why I say hey if emi/apple wont do it they should let the masters out and let people do what they want with them. They could go in and transfer everything into formats that people like us could use and sell them. I bet they'd sell like hotcakes at even a rediculous price...

JPMorris...I see you live in England. Why dont you go and get a job as a janitor at EMI studios and wait about a year to get in good and then slip down into the basement and Ill meet you in the back with a Van...

 

[Ding Dong]

This would leave the responsibility for the lifeless b.s. on the radio today squarely on the shoulders of the meat puppets writing, playing, and recording it, not on the fine equipment it is recorded upon.

Hey- don't say anything bad about the meat puppets...

 

[THX1136]

I remember the ads for the 3340 when that deck was introduced. It was indeed hyped using the Beatles/Sgt Pepper example. Getting all the wannabees to figure if the Beatles can do Pepper on 2 4-tracks imagine what you can do with the same. (In fact I think I still have a copy of a Rolling Stone magazine with that ad.)

I came across a guy (probably the same one you spoke with Marty) on ebay trying to sell a 2340 (citing 3340 specs no less) claiming it was the exact same deck the Beatles used for all their "early recordings". I decided to play dumb and asked some pointed questions to see how the individual would respond. Stuff like, "How did the Beatles use a 2340 in 1965 when the deck wasn't introduced until the early 70s?" I got no response. Hmmmm.

 

[ofajen]

I would love to record 4 tracks onto 1 " tape. Just think of the frequency response...1/4" per track...heck most semi-pro/home model recorders today use 1/4" for 4 tracks.
Although you can argue that The Beatles sounded great...well they did. Compared to other bands at the time they were limited. EMI Studios/Abbey Road was said to be about 5-10 years behind all the other studios around at the time. When other bands were using 8 track they were just starting to use 4 track.

A few things:

1) I owned a J-37 for a while, but it was beyond my ability to get it to work. It had a problem with the tape handling that I just couldn't figure out. Luckily, I was able to sell it for what I had in it to my fellow 3M-o-phile, Mitch Easter. That was six years ago and he is only just now getting it online for his studio, Fidelitorium.

2) The J-37 is not just 4 tracks on 1" tape, it is a massive, 350 lb. recorder with tube electronics, not solid state, and it has no built in meters!

3) A big part of the Beatles sound was that they were great songwriters and had gigged so much that they could play really well. They recorded at Abbey Road, where the maintenance techs wear lab coats! They recorded in Studio 2, which is a big, versatile and good sounding room.

4) I believe that the earliest part of their catalog was recorded on 1/2" 4-track machines, which would have included EMI machines and may have included Telefunken machines, too. Abbey Road was not far behind other studios in adopting 4 track machines and they took them as far as anyone ever did with bouncing and syncing.

5) 8 track machines didn't really start to see that much use until about 1967 or so and Abbey Road started checking out the 3M M-23 8 track machines within about a year or so. Not too much later, they started using the 3M machines instead of the Studers. They weren't really that far behind in the number of tracks at that point, either. Besides, as noted above, they were using a pair of J-37s and doing bouncing and syncing to put together complex mixes with a lot of parts.

6) The first 16 track machines were created in 1968. I have no idea when Abbey Road had such a machine available. That is too many tracks!

Cheers,

Otto

 

[ofajen]

But Im interested in was sgt pepper 4 track on 1 inch tape or 2 inch tape was TWA 8-track on 2 inch tape and what model was it...

The 3M M-23 series only went up to 1" tape. That's what Abbey Road started using to replace the J-37s. 2" 16 track machines in the 3M line started in 1968 with the first M-56 Dale Manquen made (unknown to some of his bosses) for Wally Heider. That was the very first "modern" 16 track with a central cabinet for all the cards and a central remote for arming all tracks. Prior to that, machines like the Ampex MM-1000 and M-23 were all of the "stack of single channel 3-rack-space electronics per channel" type.

Most of the M-23 1" machines ordered had 8 tape tracks. Probably most of those were NAB machines with 8 audio tracks, but some were 4 track machines where each audio channel used 2 tape tracks using their Dynatrack system to increase S/N by about 15 dB. However, you could also order headstacks for 3, 4 or 6 tracks on 1" tape.

Cheers,

Otto