Sounds fine in the lows D. I don't hear a ton of sub bass, but a lot is to do w the song arrangement. I'm wondering what the crossover frequency is. Also is it a tad hot at 100 & 300hz? I'm sorta guessing cuz I'm at home. Nothing glaring.

The performance is outstanding. It's nice to see a song like that delivered gently instead of slammed.

I've listened on my little JBL bookshelf speakers, earbuds, good headphones - so far. The bass is definitely tight and present, but wasn't overbearing on anything I've listened through yet.

I listened to this through my KRK 5 inch monitors and also AGK 701s', sounds really sweet to my ear.:D
The bass sits well I think. Overall the mix sounds very well balanced through what I'm listening to it through.
BTW, great vocals Donny. (y)

Great stuff, Donny. It's a really nice track.

While playing the track, I tried toggling my sub on and off to see what the differences were on my KRK speaker setup, where I reckon to have the sub pretty well matched to the mains for my room, both for level and crossover frequency. If anything, the low bass on this track is still a little light, but it sounds fine on the mains alone.

I set my system up this way after several years of taking my supposedly finished mixes to various different mastering houses, only to hear in their rooms that my low bass was often not consistent from one track to the next. I was not hearing this with the loudspeaker configuration without sub that I was using at the time. Most of the MEs I worked with were really helpful in suggesting ways of getting consistent bass, and the main message was that to get consistency, you really do have to shift the air, and that means a sub. The ear is very good at inventing bass that is implied but not really present, but at the final mix and more particularly at the mastering stage, it must be physically there if you want a consistent product.

Thanks a bunch guys. My main concern was whether the physical placement of the sub was such so that the low end wouldn't be giving me a "false" sense, or as Bos mentioned, that implied sense.

I've talked with other engineers who frequently mix with subs and who have determined that placing it in corners is best, but that's not what I did. I placed it pretty much right at my feet under the workstation.

I'm not sure I'd choose to mix with a sub for everything I do, and I agree with Kyle that this song was probably not the best choice, or that it is indicative of a more active bass track ( It just so happened to be the main thing I was working on at the time).
But I'm glad to hear that it translated well - at least for the most part - to other/various systems.

Thanks again guys, I really do appreciate you taking the time. :)

OMG did we all agree on something? Lol is this the first time in history 5 engineers in a row say "that low end is fine" either we are in the twilight zone, or D is just that good. !

OMG did we all agree on something? Lol is this the first time in history 5 engineers in a row say "that low end is fine" either we are in the twilight zone, or D is just that good.

I've found w small subs, like my Cambridge sound works how theater sub, that they actually become directional. An 8-10" speaker still emits frequencies that have a clear directionality to them.

I tend to put the subs near the speakers for that reason. And I think that's where the notion of the .2 subs came in, one in each corner to avoid the 'semi' directionality of smaller subs.

kmetal, post: 432706, member: 37533 wrote: either we are in the twilight zone, or D is just that good.

Nah.. it's definitely a Twilight Zone moment. LOL

The bass sounds good here, I'm just a little bothered with a peak around 15k with the back vocal 'wishing you were here'.. and when they say 'change my life' it sounds ok
You have a bit of noise when in the intro and the break. Also, I would have put less room sound in the drums.. but I know you like them like that ;)

Nice Job and thanks for sharing Donny !

I remember that song. The LF is fine. The lead vocal sounds buried to me, and I'm notorious for burying vocals. There's also something slightly odd about the lead vocal tone, like I'm hearing the room.

kmetal, post: 432707, member: 37533 wrote: I've found w small subs, like my Cambridge sound works how theater sub, that they actually become directional. An 8-10" speaker still emits frequencies that have a clear directionality to them.

I tend to put the subs near the speakers for that reason. And I think that's where the notion of the .2 subs came in, one in each corner to avoid the 'semi' directionality of smaller subs.

Except physics shows that smaller sources have dispersion patterns that are less directional. Any source sufficiently small relative to a given frequency will have an omnidirectional dispersion pattern. Even my Celestion SR-2 cabinets, approximately 30" on each side, are essentially omni up to 100Hz at least.

Of course localization is a different thing. The smaller the source the easier it is to locate. But human hearing is mostly unable to locate the direction of low frequency sources regardless of size. If you can hear where your sub is it must be reproducing frequencies above 80Hz, maybe above 200Hz. I suspect your crossover frequency is too high.

bouldersound, post: 432744, member: 38959 wrote: Except physics shows that smaller sources have dispersion patterns that are less directional. Any source sufficiently small relative to a given frequency will have an omnidirectional dispersion pattern. Even my Celestion SR-2 cabinets, approximately 30" on each side, are essentially omni up to 100Hz at least.

Of course localization is a different thing. The smaller the source the easier it is to locate. But human hearing is mostly unable to locate the direction of low frequency sources regardless of size. If you can hear where your sub is it must be reproducing frequencies above 80Hz, maybe above 200Hz. I suspect your crossover frequency is too high.

Well even with the crossover 50-80 there was still a sense of directionality. As if the lows from the kick and synth bass was coming from the side the sub was on.

You figure an 8" woofer a 1'x1' box, and maybe 200w of power. I think the cabinet and speaker don't reporduc ether sub lows very efficiently. The cabinet honks at the upper harmonics 200hz+, and there's insufficient power to fill the room with the omnidirectional frequencies. I think this is playing into more than the actual dispersion pattern. I don't think there's enough effencicy between the amp and speaker to push the sub lows to the listening position. I have no doubts that something with a lower resonant frequency would sound less directional. This generally means s larger driver and bigger cab. Even with the same wattage, the bigger box and speaker may not sound louder, but would push lower frequencies naturally making less directional. This is all room dependent, and there is certainly cases where a smaller driver would add more useable bass than a larger speaker, in a small room, due to modal excitations Ect.

At least that's how I see it, I might not be completely correct in my thinking .

bouldersound, post: 432743, member: 38959 wrote: I remember that song. The LF is fine. The lead vocal sounds buried to me, and I'm notorious for burying vocals. There's also something slightly odd about the lead vocal tone, like I'm hearing the room.

I'm sure you are. The lead vocal is just a scratch... and truthfully there won't be another take at it, because the intent of this track is so that I can add it to my live solo act, so I'll be singing and playing guitar over it live. The song isn't "mixed" mixed. I just wanted to check the low end, as I'm planning on adding an active sub to my gig PA. It was all just an experiment to see if I was able to mix with a sub after not having done it for a few years. :)

Well, that's reaffirming in a couple of ways, of your standards and my ability to hear things like that.

kmetal, post: 432756, member: 37533 wrote: Well even with the crossover 50-80 there was still a sense of directionality. As if the lows from the kick and synth bass was coming from the side the sub was on.

That little sub could be resonating at a higher frequency. It might be fun to run some sweeps.

Really nice mix! Lows sound fine to me.

DonnyThompson, post: 432669, member: 46114 wrote: Yesterday, for the first time in quite a few years, I tried mixing with a subwoofer added to my monitoring; I'm still getting used to it, as well as trying to locate the best placement for it in the room...

I've heard of a technique for this from folks who install home theatre systems. I haven't tried it yet but it makes sense from a physics standpoint.

Play a 80 Hz tone through your system at ~ 83 dB measured at your seated position (with the sub not connected, bass management off to get it through your speakers). Then use a sound level meter (an app should work) and walk around the room perimeter holding the meter/phone at sub speaker level. Readings will vary in level a few dB as you move the meter from place to place due to reinforcement nodes, by virtue of constructive/destructive interference from any standing waves.

Find the place where the level reading is the lowest, and that is where to place the sub, because it will provide the least SW reinforcement, which is what you are trying to avoid in sub placement (you want different freqs to have minimal reinforcement so they are as much the same level compared to each other as possible). That point is where destructive interference dampens the resonance of parallel walls in the room the most, and the sub will "ring" least when positioned at that point, giving the truest response.

If you have a second sub, place that at the point where the reinforcement level (SPL) reads the highest (not sure why that part makes any sense). If you use a higher cutoff, a higher tone value might work better. My own take on this is that for a second sub you might want to try a lower frequency and place the second sub there instead, as that might even out the levels since different freqs might have nodes in different physical places.

I can't vouch for it, but it seems like something to try. Probably a little experimentation would be good, but this might be a good jumping off point to get started.

I have a little powered 10-incher that I have been letting collect dust, and I have been considering adding it into my monitoring system, so I would be interested to see how things play out for you.

Hi Tom - and welcome to RO. :)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'd like to have Brien Holcomb ( @Brien Holcombe ) or Kyle ( kmetal ) weigh in on this; Brian is RO's resident acoustics guru, and Kyle is also really knowledgeable on the subject, as well as being a working audio engineer, and having recently built his own home theater.

Understand, I'm not saying unequivocally that this method won't work; I just don't know, because I don't have the experience in acoustics that others here on RO do.

The one thing that does come to mind as a possible fly in the ointment of that method, is, what if the null point in a given space just so happens to be somewhere in mid air? Or close to the ceiling? Or, smack dab in the middle of the room? Yeah, it's "doable", if you don't mind having your clients tripping over it all the time. :LOL: LOL

I may give this method a shot at some point; depending on what Brien and Kyle have to say, ( I really trust these guys ); but for now, I've gone back to mixing without a sub since my initial post. It was really just more of an experiment than anything else, just to find out what would happen if I did incorporate a sub into the monitoring.

I still feel most comfortable in mixing without one, I guess I'm just more comfortable doing so... and maybe the word to use instead is "confident".

I've been mixing through these same nearfields ( and same power amp) for so long now, that I feel I have the highest amount of accurate control of the lows without using an added sub. Also, the room I'm mixing in has been acoustically treated based on these monitors - meaning that I ran my measurement tests using them - and while it was kinda neat to hear that added "reinforcement" on the low end, I was never really confident with the accuracy of the sound I was hearing.

To be totally honest, I think I just kinda stumbled into "luck" when I mixed and posted that audio sample above. For whatever reason - on that particular song, and on that particular mix, the low end seemed to translate well - at least according to my colleagues here on RO, and their comments saying that the low end sounded good on their systems. But that doesn't mean I felt confident that it would sound that way when I initially posted it. I was actually expecting comments to the contrary, suggesting that it sounded, well... bad. LOL

I just got lucky. That's all. It had nothing to do with my skill as a mixer in this case; because I really didn't know how it would sound to others... and that's why I posted the sample.

I suppose that if I were to start mixing with a sub on a regular basis, that eventually I might get acclimated to it, and maybe I could find a common ground that would always translate well to systems outside of my room; but then again, I'm not confident of the quality of the sub I have, either. It's just a small Altec consumer-grade model, (I think it came included in a computer package I bought years ago) so the actual quality of the sub - or more likely the lack thereof - is a valid concern, and that also plays into my hesitancy in using it on a regular basis.

I do periodically check finished mixes through this Altec system in my living room ( which also came with two speakers that resemble Auratones, but which are nowhere near the same accuracy, either) to hear my mixes through a "common" playback scenario. So occasionally, I find this system useful as a way to check mixes for car audio translation, or for consumer-grade computer audio translation, and it often seems to be pretty close, depending of course on the particular car and its audio system. LOL. But as far as mixing through it, I'm not at all confident. ;)

FWIW

-d.

Boswell, post: 432686, member: 29034 wrote: I set my system up this way after several years of taking my supposedly finished mixes to various different mastering houses, only to hear in their rooms that my low bass was often not consistent from one track to the next. I was not hearing this with the loudspeaker configuration without sub that I was using at the time.

You hit the nail on the head of my main concern, Bos.

When mixing through my normal monitoring configuration - meaning just the nearfields - I've never had an M.E. tell me that my lows were way too hot or way too shy across the board.

I've often wondered how many pro engineers mix with a sub. Perhaps I'll post a poll, at least to find out what RO engineers prefer. I have no idea if the "big boys" do so or not... cats like Andrew Scheps, Bob Clearmountain, CLA ... along with finding out what well-known and respected high level M.E.'s do as well - Bob Katz, Greg Calbi, Ian Sheppard, etc., and even with well-respected mid-level M.E.'s like Cass Anawaty, Tom Bethel, etc.

Boswell, post: 432686, member: 29034 wrote: Most of the MEs I worked with were really helpful in suggesting ways of getting consistent bass, and the main message was that to get consistency, you really do have to shift the air, and that means a sub. The ear is very good at inventing bass that is implied but not really present, but at the final mix and more particularly at the mastering stage, it must be physically there if you want a consistent product.

Which is why I guess my preference is - at least as of this writing - to let the M.E. handle it. They can monitor through a sub ( if they choose), and through their gear, in their acoustically balanced space, decide what to do with the low end.
I trust a skilled M.E. a lot more than I trust myself to handle that frequency range.

I believe that there are just far too many variables involved in using a sub in my mixing space. I'd rather have those sub frequencies controlled by someone who has a quality monitoring rig, who has a great sounding room, and who has the ears and the know-how to properly adjust those ultra low frequencies. ;)

I think we are all circling around the primary dilemma dogging every monitoring soundspace, which is that when there are parallel reflective surfaces (or other acoustic issues), there can be standing waves, and this increases exponentially downward per octave, which is why monitoring with a sub in such a space can be treacherous. So of course the best fix is to fix the soundspace, or build a soundspace that minimizes SW reflections.

Bobby Owsinski counsels that the prime spot to place your nearfields is 38% of the difference between parallel front-back walls for this same reason. So sub placement is basically a fix, or workaround, to minimize this problem (I also think just having your workspace tilted at an axis slightly off-parallel from the walls can help, if done right).

But perfect placement can't solve everything. If your sub is at the wrong position, and there is no perfect position (or if you are in a poorly-designed room), some low notes will sound louder than others (even if they are not, according to the waveforms) because every different frequency will have SW nodes at slightly different physical locations in the room, and you can't minimize everything, which will drive a Mixer up a wall.

For example, every C# the bassist hits might sound louder, in a particular imperfect listening environment, than every G# a 5th above that which she/he plays. Or vice versa, depending on where you as the Mixer are physically located in the room. Even if the notes are actually the same level. That's problematic.

With that in mind, my approach would be to use the sub, even placed perfectly, to get an idea whether the overall low end is right, but ignore, for now, the differences in levels of individual bass notes (which could be partially a phantom process caused by room reflections). Then follow up without the sub or on HPs to get the comparative levels of particular bass notes or kick hits to sit correctly in the mix (using automation, or editing note levels in the audio track).

You also want a good deal of that expensive speaker foam under the sub (and even your nearfields), because without it, low waves can transfer to the floor (or editing console). Once traveling through the floor, they will reach you faster than the sound through the air, and cause group delay-like blurring which will hurt the imaging of the kick/bass. That foam can decouple that process, and allow more clarity in lower octaves.

Donny you know I'd say if something sounded wrong to me. And quite simply put. It doesn't. Nice job man. Haha.

I haven't listened to it in the studio but for some stupid reason if things sound good on my computer monitors in the office then its probably going to be fine every where else. It does.

The more I listen to this song, the more I think that this is a really good example of how things should sit in the sound stage.

I often find myself sitting in front of my nearfields with my eyes closed listening to this song...you can even tell that the drummer, sampled or not, is left handed from the roll of the toms from left to right, although they are still relatively centred to the middle 90 degrees from dead centre:D

This should serve as a great reference track to anyone wanting to know about placement in the sound stage(y)

Thanks, Sean. :)

I have to come clean, though... and admit that rarely do I ever mix toms the exact same way, every single time, in regard to panning.

Sometimes I'll mix them wide, and "big", while other times I'll mix them in a much "tighter" field, more "intimate", for lack of a better description, and sometimes I'll even mix them very narrow, with only the slightest L-R spread, bordering almost on mono.

You can hear this on any given song you might listen to... for example, on something like Steely Dan's Peg, the drums are more natural sounding, more intimate, tighter and focused... whereas with a song like Love Will Find A Way by Yes, everything in the mix sounds bigger-than-life, and was placed and mixed accordingly, in a dramatic approach to the stereo field.

It really all depends on the song. There are times I will mix the kit from the drummer's point of view, with higher-tuned toms on the left, and moving to the right as each gets closer to the floor tom ... the same thing with the Ride and HH... with the HH on the left and the Ride further to the right... yet other times I mix them from the POV of the listener, which reverses all of those things - of course, all of that gets blown right out the window, depending on whether or not the drummer is right or left handed - LOL.

There have also been times where I'm not as concerned with the "true" placement of the kit pieces ( from a right-handed drummer's POV), but instead, I will place pieces dependent upon the other instrumentation in the mix.
On more than just a few occasions, I've ended up throwing the HH off to the right, ( or the Ride off to the left) in the event that they were perhaps conflicting with something else on the Left or Right side, where I would normally place them respectively.
At that point, I'm making those decisions based only on how the whole mix sounds.

If the mix sounds better and more balanced with the HH to the right, or the Ride to the left, I don't agonize over whether or not that upsets the "natural" perception of things.

IMHO of course. ;)

I don't know if you mixed those drums left or right handed, or whether my nearfields are plugged in the wrong way...lol:D, but gee Donny,

Either way it still sounds bloody good to me(y)

Tonight I was listening to an FM channel that was streamed on the web, they played a track from The Beatles Please Please Me, I think it may have been the track Boys...
- It was from the remastered version of the album released in 2009.
As opposed to the original mono recording, the remaster had the drums and vocals panned hard right, while the guitars were panned hard left.
- I guess they could only work with the limited tracks that were recorded at the time.

Sean G, post: 434424, member: 49362 wrote: I don't know if you mixed those drums left or right handed, or whether my nearfields are plugged in the wrong way...lol:D, but gee Donny,

Either way it still sounds bloody good to me(y)

Thanks, Sean. I appreciate you taking the time to listen and note your observations. Since I first posted this, I've used this same track ( without lead vocals and rhythm guitar) on a few gigs, and I haven't had any issues with the low end sounding any different than all of my other song tracks. It's not like I have to reach over to the mixer to turn down the lows when the song starts. It sounds even and balanced.

I just got lucky. LOL ;)

TomLewis, post: 433460, member: 49520 wrote: For example, every C# the bassist hits might sound louder, in a particular imperfect listening environment, than every G# a 5th above that which she/he plays. Or vice versa, depending on where you as the Mixer are physically located in the room. Even if the notes are actually the same level. That's problematic.

Indeed. And a very valid observation to make, Tom.

Before I treated my mixing space, there were occasions where I'd be pulling my hair out, because a particular low frequency bass guitar note would really jump out at me - or, be attenuated, or even disappear entirely.
It wasn't that the note was really too hot ( or too shy) in the actual mix; it was all happening as the result of how the room was reacting to that note/frequency, and that's a very hard thing to have to deal with.
It made for some very uneven sounding bass tracks for quite sometime ... which in turn would cause me to over-use gain reduction, or draw a volume envelope that wouldn't work when that same track was played elsewhere.

After treating the room, those problems all but disappeared, but at the same time, I didn't treat the room while using a sub integrated into my monitoring - so I was very unsure as to how it would actually sound, which is why I initially posted my query, curious to find out how the translation would be to other well-tuned systems and rooms.

And once again, I can't take credit for luck, and that's really all it was. Random placement of the sub, without much regard to X-Over point(s), is not what one would consider to be a "skill set", or a knowledge-based experiment... LOL.
I just got lucky with this one, is all. It could have just as easily headed south of the suck line, if it had been another song, or another "random" placement of the sub. ;)

Sean G, post: 434425, member: 49362 wrote: Tonight I was listening to an FM channel that was streamed on the web, they played a track from The Beatles Please Please Me, I think it may have been the track Boys...
- It was from the remastered version of the album released in 2009.
As opposed to the original mono recording, the remaster had the drums and vocals panned hard right, while the guitars were panned hard left.
- I guess they could only work with the limited tracks that were recorded at the time.

Part of it was the track limitation, and wanting to keep certain things discreet as possible during those track "comp'ing" sessions, where several tracks would be mixed down to one, in order to buy back track space to record more parts...

But a lot of it also had to do with the EMI consoles being used at Abbey Road at the time; on the REDD and TG12345 desks installed at Abbey Road in the 50' and 60's, they didn't have variable pan controls; instead, the desks had switches that the engineer could use to assign a track to, with L, L-R, and R being the choices ... so these were "fixed" stereo positions, which would account for the extreme panning/ separation that can be heard on those early stereo versions of their songs. Using those consoles, they didn't have the ability to take a mono track and place it "20%" to the left (or right) in the stereo field. It was hard panning, one direction or the other, or centered detent.

Stereo was still a newer thing for pop records at the time; most releases were in mono, because that's what most consumers had at home with their playback systems; along with AM radio, and the "new transistor radio", which was still ruling the roost in those years for pop music ( The transistor radio was invented in the 40's, but started becoming really popular around '63 or so with teenagers, it was like what the Walkman was to the 1980's) ; so there wasn't a great deal of a concern with releasing stereo versions of pop records then, when the majority of people buying and listening to music were 15 year old teenagers listening with their transistor radios, or in their bedrooms putting 45's onto their $7.95 portable Silvertone mono record player from Sears.

There were some "hi fi" releases available then; mostly classical/orchestral/jazz though, and they were released in that format because that's how they were being recorded, in real time, using mic placement and various arrays to accomplish this. The labels offered these releases to appeal to the "esoteric" crowd, those early audiophiles who were willing to spend the money - and sometimes quite a bit of it, even by today's standards - to be able to satiate their desire to hear music in a "just like you were there!" type of fidelity.

I'm gonna have to page Boulder and Kurt Foster for further info on this though; if my memory serves correct, it was one of these guys ( or maybe both) whom I learned this information from originally, regarding the early Abbey Road desks and the recording methods used on early Beatles records...

"Paging Doctors bouldersound and Kurt Foster ... you're needed, "stat"...." LOL

It wasn't me that told you that, but that sounds right to me. Pop music was in mono for the most part. Stereo was for the elites.

I heard a story about the record company putting out a stereo version of some Beatles recordings, which horrified George Martin. He had been using the stereo tape recorder like a multitrack with the intent of mixing it to mono with eq and leveling one each of the two tracks, but at some point when he was out of the picture it got released unmixed as if it were a "stereo" recording.

here's what i have heard.

"Please Please Me" and "With The Beatles", tracked at Abbey Road with an EMI built REDD tube console and 1/4" - BTR 2 and BTR 3, two track tape machines, built by EMI in house at Abbey Road.

beginning with "I Want to Hold Your Hand", they recorded on 1" four track. Telefunken machines were in use first but proved to be too difficult to operate under the conditions so Studer J37s were procured in 1965. From 1965, J37 machines built by Studer and modified by EMI and the "REDD" consoles were in use.

initially the REDD .37 with Siemens V72s pres was in service. in Jan. '64, Abbey Road installed the REDD .51 with BMI / REDD 47 pre amps in Studio 2. Almost all subsequent Beatles records were done in #2 thru REDD .51's with the exceptions of Abbey Road, (TG) The White Album cuts from Olympic and "Let It Be" (the old REDD .37 from Studio #2).

"The White Album" was largely done on four track at Abbey Road #2 but a few tracks were eight tracks recorded at Olympic Studios.

"Abbey Road" was recorded on a modified 3M eight track with the new TG transistor console.

i have Parliphone pressings of all of the Beatles records up to Apple. these are the recordings that were mastered at Abbey Road. the records released by Capitol were mastered in the US. on these early "Abbey Road" releases, the rhythm tracks are on one side with vocals on the other. there was a small amount of echo chamber cross mixed in to opposing tracks so you hear a small amount of verb from the vocals on the rhythm track and some verb from the music on the vocals. i am confident this is not bleed as it's too broadband to be that. i think it was done at mastering (a common practice at the time) intentionally to enhance the stereo "effect" and to mask noise, but i could be wrong.

even on the first two albums, actual mastering to disk was not transferred directly off the original 2 track tapes. as with the ensuing multi track recordings, transfers were done from the second generation mix tapes and edits. they mixed first to mono and last to stereo. the mono mix's were considered to be most important so the most time and attention was allocated to them. The Beatles and Martin would usually be in attendance for the mono mix's but the stereo mix's were mostly left to the engineer as it usually only involved switching the channels on the console to stereo with the already agreed to balances and moves left as they were. this is the reason Sir George wanted the mono tapes used for the reissues. the records released by Capitol in the US all were mastered by Capitol (i'm guessing in in LA) from third gen copies.

Attached files

There ya go!

Just out of curiosity Kurt Foster ....whats that fridge-like unit facing John?:confused:

-Any idea???

In a previous post, we were discussing older consoles that didn't have pan pots, but instead used switches to assign the singal to either L, R, or mono sum (Center)

I just stumbled upon this today, and thought I'd post it for fun...

@4:05

Its a good watch...I love the reverb set-up in the mens bathroom...very old-school !

For those that may not have seen this, check out this virtual tour of the Abbey Road studio...while the Beatles are recording

http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2013/11/8/walk-around-a-beatles-abbey-road-recording-session-amazing.html

Click on the link once you are on the page for a virtual 360 degree tour

Kurt Foster, post: 434448, member: 7836 wrote: here's what i have heard.

"Please Please Me" and "With The Beatles", tracked at Abbey Road with an EMI built REDD tube console and 1/4" - BTR 2 and BTR 3, two track tape machines, built by EMI in house at Abbey Road.

beginning with "I Want to Hold Your Hand", they recorded on 1" four track. Telefunken machines were in use first but proved to be too difficult to operate under the conditions so Studer J37s were procured in 1965. From 1965, J37 machines built by Studer and modified by EMI and the "REDD" consoles were in use.

initially the REDD .37 with Siemens V72s pres was in service. in Jan. '64, Abbey Road installed the REDD .51 with BMI / REDD 47 pre amps in Studio 2. Almost all subsequent Beatles records were done in #2 thru REDD .51's with the exceptions of Abbey Road, (TG) The White Album cuts from Olympic and "Let It Be" (the old REDD .37 from Studio #2).

"The White Album" was largely done on four track at Abbey Road #2 but a few tracks were eight tracks recorded at Olympic Studios.

"Abbey Road" was recorded on a modified 3M eight track with the new TG transistor console.

i have Parliphone pressings of all of the Beatles records up to Apple. these are the recordings that were mastered at Abbey Road. the records released by Capitol were mastered in the US. on these early "Abbey Road" releases, the rhythm tracks are on one side with vocals on the other. there was a small amount of echo chamber cross mixed in to opposing tracks so you hear a small amount of verb from the vocals on the rhythm track and some verb from the music on the vocals. i am confident this is not bleed as it's too broadband to be that. i think it was done at mastering (a common practice at the time) intentionally to enhance the stereo "effect" and to mask noise, but i could be wrong.

actual mastering to disk was not transferred directly off the original 2 track tapes. transfers were done from the second generation mix tapes and edits. they mixed first to mono and last to stereo. the mono mix's were considered to be most important so the most time and attention was allocated to them. The Beatles and Martin would usually be in attendance for the mono mix's but the stereo mix's were mostly left to the engineer as it usually only involved switching the channels on the console to stereo with the already agreed to balances and moves left as they were. this is the reason Sir George wanted the mono tapes used for the reissues. the records released by Capitol in the US all were mastered by Capitol (i'm guessing in in LA) from third gen copies.

There you are Kurt!!!! It's been a Long time buddy. That's the most comprehensively concise history of the Beatles recording ever.!!

Any idea what they were using for monitors/amps back then?? I'm guessing in house custom as per usual for abbey road back then?!

according to Ken Scott, Altec 612's loaded with Altec 604's or 605's.

no idea what the box in the pic is ..... a fridge?

Attached files

Classic hifi. My buddy's family was either close friends or involved w the cizak company back in the early telecommunications days

Kurt Foster, post: 434502, member: 7836 wrote: no idea what he box in the pic is ..... a fridge?

Lol they were my first thoughts Kurt Foster....maybe thats why John is eyeing so contently....

-Maybe its full of cold...er...warm english beer !!!:D