Years ago the first stereo recordings were hard panned to the left and right as the Beatles did. What happened to that style of mixing? Hear our catalog at HTTP://octaverecords.com
An additional reason for the separation of vocals and instruments in early records was that in the recording session, they were not dealing with many tracks. Maybe three or four. on 1/2 inch tape. And as someone mentioned earlier, the consoles didn't have pan pots on each channel. The first recording studio I worked at had an ancient Altec console, and it had two pan pots on separate strips. Back then, panning was considered a special effect.
It's impossible for it to be "REAL" stereo because the original tracks were not recorded in stereo with 2 or more mics. A modern remix might be very good, but it would be FAKE stereo.
One thing about the early Beatles recordings - through their first two albums, they were recording on two-track recorders. Also, their target audience rarely had stereos in 1962-63, so the producer had mono in mind. He recorded the instruments on one channel and the vocals on the other, to give flexibility on the relative loudness of the voices and instruments when mixed to mono. And the stereo records basically were a copy of the two-track tape.
The early Beatles records were done on a two track machine. Instruments recorded on one with vocals recorded on the other. Then mixed and mastered in mono. The original releases were in mono. Then the record company wanted a stereo release as well. They took the mono master and split it up to stereo. They sounded odd. The mono masters sound great. SGT PEPPERS LONLEY HEARTS CLUB BAND was the first Beatles album fully recorded, mixed and mastered as stereo. However it was recorded using a four channel machine. As a result the stereo mix had some odd imaging as well. Thanks. Love your videos.
I remember listening to The Beatles recordings on an AM Station in my hometown. It sounded very strange. Later, I understood why. The station had stereo turntables, but the equipment was mono. Someone had connected only one channel of the turntable to the preamp of the console.
Peter Paul & Mary releases commonly had that "super-stereo." Most every time, Mary was on the right speaker -- not always. By the 1980s I heard that effect less frequently. Mid-1980s Dead-Or-Alive group brought tape flanging to a couple of their extended songs. Our ears deciphered the sound as "circling around us," although it turns out tape flanging wasn't revolutionary. I never heard other artists use the effect this way.
Some of the earliest Mono to Stereo conversions were simply bandwidth filtered. Certain bands of frequency were sent to each channel. I believe they used 5 bands. I was listening to some early Stereo vinyl and the extreme separation was driving me crazy! I am so used to a solid center and love the vocals there!
1958 to 1964 were the novelty days of stereo. It was full right or full left for dramatic effect to sell new equipment to the consumer. The Command Records masters of that period were recorded on 35 mm sprocketed magnetic film in three channels. The "ping pong" effect at the start of most tracks of left then right were their signature gimmick. Professor Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings also recorded in 3 channels on a custom built reel to reel that he built himself back in the 1950's.
Well, pop and rock producers didn't know what to do with stereo, but there are many many absolutely wonderful stereo recordings in classical music from the 50s (not to mention a handful of experimental ones from the 40s).
The early Beatles recordings that had a vocal on one side and instruments on the other did provide a “wide” soundstage for sure and didn’t sound all that bad when listening through speakers. It did sound very noticeable and odd when listened to through headphones, which really separated the two channels. Of course in 1964, listening with headphones was not at all common like it is today. I don’t recall a big uproar about this back in the day. All most of us kids could afford back then was the mono versions anyway, since the stereo records cost more and were not as widely available as mono at record stores.
In my opinion, recordings from the 1970s got really good. Not only were the methods and materials for recording far beyond decades prior, engineering reached a level where love of craft and the promise of a superior product made listeners take notice. Now technology is far superior, yet everything else around it has taken a back seat.
It was the introduction of multitrack recorders that gave rise to better recordings. Instruments could be isolated on their own track and tweaked during mixdown well after the recorded performance, thus crafting each element of the sound to get the best balance. Recording instruments one at a time on their own track also means you don't get bleed from other instruments, so the sound is cleaner. During the 90's, the trend was back to a live ambient sound by allowing elements to bleed into each other.
Paul W. Klipsch captured some of the very first LIVE stereo recordings with his tape machine ! No one seems to be awhere of that. I have a recording done by him IN STEREO. Date? 1954 !!!
@@mikewinburn Interesting! My 80ies career rock band recorded our basic tracking in his studio! (Studio 55) Very vintage vibe complete with port hole windows in the doors, vintage overhead lighting etc. Ray Charles was there on one of the days we were recording. He was singing a commercial for KFC !! On another day, an engineer was mixing down a Randy Travis tune (Forever and Ever, Amen). Those were the days!
I hate the recordings that some instruments and voices are coming from right and others from left, I rather listen to mono than extreme left and right.
Walt Disney had Fantasound which was a stereophonic sound reproduction system developed by engineers of Walt Disney studios and RCA for Walt Disney's animated film Fantasia! I think that was 1938 - 39?
@@Bassotronics Im not getting any cool effect from this one panned left : / Screen name reminds me of those CD's you used to find @ local car audio shops ; )
@@AllboroLCD The song’s lyric says “to the left to the left everything is to the left” that’s what I’m referring to. And about my screen name is because I’m a producer who’s still producing the type of music used to find in car audio shops. Howdy!
I love old 2 channel records (no panning) and sometimes called 3 channel, but for sure I never liked the odd ball stuff that's generating the question at hand - - but hell yeah, left - center - right, with the vocals (primarily) in that center channel - still love those old recordings, not that I'd want to give up the better recordings of today that utilize the entire sound stage - - I have a record that's of reference quality, at least to me, that's done in that early stereo format with the vocal in the center (all by itself) - love it.
I’ve always said to myself wouldn’t the stereophonic be “100% accurate” if each speaker was in the left and right walls of the room instead of in front just like headphones speakers on each ear?
Early stereo pop/rock recordings were dreadful in my mind the engineers were clueless, maybe too young. On the other hand Early jazz was excellent those engineers seemed to take the time to place the microphones properly, I believe the record companies put their best on the job for them.
One of the most amazing sounding rock records I own is the 45rpm remaster of The DOORS' Morrison Hotel. It has everything hard panned, but I don't one bit. It's clear, punchy, and dynamic! Yeah, there's no soundstage to speak of, but who cares... it's weird and sounds fantastic. Many of the early Doors records were mixed this way, but Morrison Hotel is the only one I own, besides a Best of CD. I'd buy another 45rpm album, but sadly they're not available!!
From what I read the Beatles didn't want them released that way. I think they wanted them to be mono like everything else. I'm not sure why they got the way they were other than they didn't know what to do with it. I thought it was really cool myself.
Paul doesn't speak as if he's actually that knowledgeable about the Beatles work or their recording practices. They (or George Martin) were using what we call "true stereo" fairly early on and if you listen to good, analog, stereo recordings you'll hear this. They DID get better as time went on and Sgt. Pepper's was quite a revelation when first heard back in 1967. But good, quality, analog, Stereo recordings were being released in the middle 1950s and after with RCA Victor's "Living Stereo," Mercury's "Living Presence," London's "Phase 4" Stereo and more. For most of us today, stereo is the only way to go. Mono certainly has many positive points, depending on what recordings you're talking about, but Stereo is, and has been for some time, state of the art.
Some recording engineers didn't know what the real purpose of stereo was, and in the absence of proper instruction they did as they pleased. The idea that panning to the center was not possible is silly.
Ok that was a good question and great answer. But now we have to address the elephant in the room. Most amplifiers don’t produce the exact same wattage through both speakers. They can be a watt or two off or even up to 5 or 6 watts off. My thought would be this would effect how well an amp images. It would be a good question to sent to paul. If anyone has his email feel free to steal that question or if you have an answer feel free to leave a comment
Kind of true Paul, but with reference to The Beatles, George Martin kinda-got the stereo image nice and balanced with the albums Beatles For Sale, Hard Days Night and Help, but crucially decided, deliberately, to mix stereo Rubber Soul in the same manner as Please Please Me and With The - record it with a 'dead centre'. This has something to do with the fact that stereo recordings with a centre channel had been reported to sound bad on mono turntables, so by removing the centre channel from the stereo image, made for a better sounding record if played on mono equipment. Big mistake by George Martin IMO, which is why we need a new remix from Giles asap.
@@bilguana11 yes, great record, not so great production. Did you know the 2009 remaster is the remaster of the 1987 mix where George Martin added a ton of 80s reverb all over it, then saved the entire thing to 16bit DAT? No, the real 'official' version to listen to is the remaster of the original 1965 stereo mix that can be found on the mono box set. :)
Another argument for these hard left/right recordings was money. When most pop music of the day was played back on AM radio or mono turntables, there was little financial incentive to spend time making great stereo recordings.
To set the record straight, The Beatles used two, four track machines. That would give them at least 8 tracks. So, the cliche about them using only four tracks is kind of Beatles folklore. If I remember right, the four track machines used were Struder brand. Interestingly, in the early 70's, Teac introduced the first prosumer level four track (multitrack) for musicians (the tape traveled in one direction with all four tracks playing.) This enabled a lot of people to record with four tracks. This was a big deal, back in those days. Lots of guys did multitrack recording, unlike The Beatles, with TRULY, only four tracks (not like the 8 tracks that The Beatles used.) This was a challenge. I did this on my first rock/country CD (although I had MIDI, so I have more "virtual tracks." ) The reason for the challenge is that you had to "premix" sounds, before other tracks were even recorded. What I mean by this is, say you wanted the rhythm section to be recorded. You'd use 3 tracks for bass, drum, and rhythm guitar. Then you'd bump these three tracks down to the fourth track. These instruments would all be mixed, together, and put on the fourth track. The trick here is you couldn't hear the other tracks that would be recorded later (over what was now occupying tracks 1,2 and 3) like the lead guitar, the vocal, or harmonies. You had to hear in your mind, how much bass, rhythm guitar, and drum would be needed, without hearing the other tracks. And, once this was done, this was a permanent mix on the fourth track, because tracks 1,2 and 3 would be soon occupied by new recordings. This was a real challenge. I was lucky enough to be able to stripe a tone on one track and use MIDI for some of my instruments. This, essentially gave me more tracks, but I still had to do premixing with tracks, and that was a real challenge. If you're curious, here is a link to a song that I recorded on my Tascam 22-4. This was one man band stuff. The bass is MIDI and the Drum is MIDI. The harmonies, and vocals, and all guitars were real, live instruments. I wish that I kept that machine. It would be a cool old dinosaur. ruclips.net/video/-HzC74nMFh0/видео.html
It's a bit misleading to say The Beatles had 8 tracks. They really didn't because it's not like they synced two 4-tracks to get 8. That wasn't possible. They could bounce 4 tracks down to 1 track fo the 2nd maching... then add 3 new tracks, and bounce those 7 tracks down to 1 track, and then add 3 more, but by then the original 3 tracks would be suffering 2 generation losses.
@@TheMirolab If you record even 3 tracks on one recorder, then transfer all three of them to one track on a second recorder, you've got three tracks. If you reuse the 3 tracks on the first machine to record three more tracks, then mix them all down to the 2nd track on the second recorder, you're now up to 6 tracks. If you repeat this process, you'll get 9 tracks, and if you repeat it again, you'll get 12 tracks. This is just one way to get more than 4 tracks on two, four track recorders. Sgt. Peppers was not done, entirely on a four track recorder. They had more tracks to work with, than that. In addition to this track issue is the people issue: The Beatles had 5 primary people working on the tracks (Martin WAS the 5th Beatle) and crews of horn and string players on various songs, on their recordings. So, even on one track, they could get 25 people, playing or singing, included on it. Les Paul actually did more impressive stuff, as an individual than any of the Beatles did, individually, when it comes to technical stuff. Les Paul was de facto multi tracking, by himself, back in the 1950s. Also, the movie industry had been using special effects for a long time. The hyperbole involved with Sgt. Pepper's can be a little over the top. By the way, McCartney's Bowl Of Cherries album may have been a pretty good display of one guy with a four track.
Just set your processor to all channel stereo, then turn off the front 3 channels of your surround set up and listen… that is precisely what you’d get. It’s not terrible….but, certainly not ideal.
I'm just now realizing they placed the musicians in the older stereo mixes like how they could be placed on a stage when playing live. Bass player all the way to the left etc. When actually listening I think it sounds very unnatural and hollow so I'm glad it's hardly ever done nowadays. Sorry to all the fans of this unique way of mixing music.
Those early stereo recordings sound artificial and very "electronic" due to lack of "panning". Early sold state pre-amps hand "blend" circuits to alleviate this problem. Nobody puts those circuits on equipment anymore.
Paul, in this video, you explained how panning gives the illusion of placement between the speakers. How about placement beyond the outer edges of the speakers? There are songs that go well beyond the outer edges of the speakers. How is that done?
I think it has to do with phasing of the waveforms. There used to be old CD (and cassettte) boomboxes that had a button you could push that would do this to give the little boombox a wider, "bigger" sound, sometimes at the expense of the center image. Some reviewers comment that they use a track by Tool called Chocolate Chip Trip that has a tone being panned left and right to test speaker imaging and that on really good speakers, the sound goes out beyond the left and right speakers. I have some old ADS L520 speakers in my bedroom in a not very optimal placement, yet on some recordings I swear the sound is coming from another room. Pretty neat. (And sometimes scary!).
@@rosswarren436 "...sometimes at the expense of the center image." No trade-offs, for my question. There are songs that have a focused center image, and a wider-than-your-speakers soundstage. All of it focused. I do not believe any tricks were played, post recording, to accomplish the wide soundstage (but perhaps it is studio gimmickry done really well?). It simply sounds like the band was spread out, and that comes through in the recording. If it is studio gimmickry, I would like to know how they pull it off. QSound will produce a very wide soundstage. It sounds amazing. But you can tell that it is not real. It is as real as something that is not real can sound. Wikipedia has a page on QSound, and lists albums that were recorded with it. I own Madonna's Immaculate Collection, which has QSound. It is a wild ride listening to it (but it varies song-to-song). But as good as it sounds (and it sounds really, really good), you can tell that it is not real. I would like to know how "real" wider-than-your-speakers soundstages are recorded.
@@NoEgg4u listen to the track I mentioned, Chocolate Chip Trip and see how it does on your speakers. It was obviously created in such a manner to offer excellent imaging without sacrificing the center image. But yes, it is phasing (differences between the channels and even between frequencies) that can create auditory illusions for a very wide soundstage. Those old boomboxes did it to an extreme level just as an "effect", not caring about any perceived accuracy or the center image.
Wasn't it also a lot of "bragging factor" so that guests would now that the host/place was modern/rich enough to have a "stereo" instead of just a gramophone?
I personally don‘t like those recordings separate drums to the left and sax to the right or vice versa. To me this sounds not like „the real thing“ and very amateurish as well! Not good!
An additional reason for the separation of vocals and instruments in early records was that in the recording session, they were not dealing with many tracks. Maybe three or four. on 1/2 inch tape. And as someone mentioned earlier, the consoles didn't have pan pots on each channel. The first recording studio I worked at had an ancient Altec console, and it had two pan pots on separate strips. Back then, panning was considered a special effect.
When I hear those hard left/right stereo recordings, I wish they would do a modern remix and make them real stereo.
It's impossible for it to be "REAL" stereo because the original tracks were not recorded in stereo with 2 or more mics. A modern remix might be very good, but it would be FAKE stereo.
One thing about the early Beatles recordings - through their first two albums, they were recording on two-track recorders. Also, their target audience rarely had stereos in 1962-63, so the producer had mono in mind. He recorded the instruments on one channel and the vocals on the other, to give flexibility on the relative loudness of the voices and instruments when mixed to mono. And the stereo records basically were a copy of the two-track tape.
The early Beatles records were done on a two track machine. Instruments recorded on one with vocals recorded on the other. Then mixed and mastered in mono. The original releases were in mono. Then the record company wanted a stereo release as well. They took the mono master and split it up to stereo. They sounded odd. The mono masters sound great. SGT PEPPERS LONLEY HEARTS CLUB BAND was the first Beatles album fully recorded, mixed and mastered as stereo. However it was recorded using a four channel machine. As a result the stereo mix had some odd imaging as well. Thanks. Love your videos.
First Stereo Elvis recordings were made on an Ampex three track machine in 1960.
'Ping pong stereo' is an old term for it (as I recall).
George Harisson: “Where do you need two loudspeakers for?” True quote!
The marketing term used at the time was "Ping Pong Stereo"
I remember listening to The Beatles recordings on an AM Station in my hometown. It sounded very strange. Later, I understood why. The station had stereo turntables, but the equipment was mono. Someone had connected only one channel of the turntable to the preamp of the console.
Peter Paul & Mary releases commonly had that "super-stereo." Most every time, Mary was on the right speaker -- not always. By the 1980s I heard that effect less frequently. Mid-1980s Dead-Or-Alive group brought tape flanging to a couple of their extended songs. Our ears deciphered the sound as "circling around us," although it turns out tape flanging wasn't revolutionary. I never heard other artists use the effect this way.
Some of the earliest Mono to Stereo conversions were simply bandwidth filtered. Certain bands of frequency were sent to each channel. I believe they used 5 bands.
I was listening to some early Stereo vinyl and the extreme separation was driving me crazy! I am so used to a solid center and love the vocals there!
1958 to 1964 were the novelty days of stereo. It was full right or full left for dramatic effect to sell new equipment to the consumer. The Command Records masters of that period were recorded on 35 mm sprocketed magnetic film in three channels. The "ping pong" effect at the start of most tracks of left then right were their signature gimmick.
Professor Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings also recorded in 3 channels on a custom built reel to reel that he built himself back in the 1950's.
Well, pop and rock producers didn't know what to do with stereo, but there are many many absolutely wonderful stereo recordings in classical music from the 50s (not to mention a handful of experimental ones from the 40s).
I did not know that. Can you name a few please?
The early Beatles recordings that had a vocal on one side and instruments on the other did provide a “wide” soundstage for sure and didn’t sound all that bad when listening through speakers. It did sound very noticeable and odd when listened to through headphones, which really separated the two channels. Of course in 1964, listening with headphones was not at all common like it is today. I don’t recall a big uproar about this back in the day. All most of us kids could afford back then was the mono versions anyway, since the stereo records cost more and were not as widely available as mono at record stores.
Oh! Thank you for explaining why the old recordings were like that.
In my opinion, recordings from the 1970s got really good. Not only were the methods and materials for recording far beyond decades prior, engineering reached a level where love of craft and the promise of a superior product made listeners take notice. Now technology is far superior, yet everything else around it has taken a back seat.
It was the introduction of multitrack recorders that gave rise to better recordings. Instruments could be isolated on their own track and tweaked during mixdown well after the recorded performance, thus crafting each element of the sound to get the best balance. Recording instruments one at a time on their own track also means you don't get bleed from other instruments, so the sound is cleaner. During the 90's, the trend was back to a live ambient sound by allowing elements to bleed into each other.
Paul W. Klipsch captured some of the very first LIVE stereo recordings with his tape machine ! No one seems to be awhere of that. I have a recording done by him IN STEREO. Date? 1954 !!!
And we can all thank bing crosby for using German technology in creating tape recordings that revolutionized the music industry in america… early 40’s
@@mikewinburn Interesting! My 80ies career rock band recorded our basic tracking in his studio! (Studio 55) Very vintage vibe complete with port hole windows in the doors, vintage overhead lighting etc.
Ray Charles was there on one of the days we were recording. He was singing a commercial for KFC !! On another day, an engineer was mixing down a Randy Travis tune (Forever and Ever, Amen). Those were the days!
@@garysmith8455 - that’s sounds like fantastic career experiences, my friend.
I hate the recordings that some instruments and voices are coming from right and others from left, I rather listen to mono than extreme left and right.
Fortunately, some preamps and receivers had a switch so you could indeed make a stereo recording into two mono channels.
Reminds me of Enoch Light Orchestra... "ping pong stereo' recordings !
Walt Disney had Fantasound which was a stereophonic sound reproduction system developed by engineers of Walt Disney studios and RCA for Walt Disney's animated film Fantasia! I think that was 1938 - 39?
A day in the life, panned all the way left is a fun way to listen : )
Like the lyrics to this song:
ruclips.net/video/2EwViQxSJJQ/видео.html
@@Bassotronics Im not getting any cool effect from this one panned left : / Screen name reminds me of those CD's you used to find @ local car audio shops ; )
@@AllboroLCD
The song’s lyric says “to the left to the left everything is to the left” that’s what I’m referring to.
And about my screen name is because I’m a producer who’s still producing the type of music used to find in car audio shops.
Howdy!
@@Bassotronics I bought one once. DJ Magic Mike, used to be able to set woofers on fire with it, lol.
@@AllboroLCD
Lol! Magic Mike released a new album last year. Still pretty good.
Yup, the Beatles, that's exactly where I remember first hearing stereo for the first time.
The Beatles even advertised on the record front cover that they are in stereo ;-)
dual audio the " theatrophone" in paris, 1881, st
First stereo recordings were 1958 I believe. That is a few years before The Beatles.
I love old 2 channel records (no panning) and sometimes called 3 channel, but for sure I never liked the odd ball stuff that's generating the question at hand - - but hell yeah, left - center - right, with the vocals (primarily) in that center channel - still love those old recordings, not that I'd want to give up the better recordings of today that utilize the entire sound stage - - I have a record that's of reference quality, at least to me, that's done in that early stereo format with the vocal in the center (all by itself) - love it.
There were some three-channel recorders (left-center-right). I have an old Herb Albert album that was clearly recorded on three tracks.
I’ve always said to myself wouldn’t the stereophonic be “100% accurate” if each speaker was in the left and right walls of the room instead of in front just like headphones speakers on each ear?
No. Just no. ;)
@Douglas Blake
Lol that would be nice if she’s sexy.
Early stereo pop/rock recordings were dreadful in my mind the engineers were clueless, maybe too young. On the other hand Early jazz was excellent those engineers seemed to take the time to place the microphones properly, I believe the record companies put their best on the job for them.
One of the most amazing sounding rock records I own is the 45rpm remaster of The DOORS' Morrison Hotel. It has everything hard panned, but I don't one bit. It's clear, punchy, and dynamic! Yeah, there's no soundstage to speak of, but who cares... it's weird and sounds fantastic. Many of the early Doors records were mixed this way, but Morrison Hotel is the only one I own, besides a Best of CD. I'd buy another 45rpm album, but sadly they're not available!!
____________ Easy come, easy go
Little highs_____________________ little lows
What was Freddie thinking?
I just hope I got my channels right.
From what I read the Beatles didn't want them released that way. I think they wanted them to be mono like everything else. I'm not sure why they got the way they were other than they didn't know what to do with it. I thought it was really cool myself.
Doug Blake has it spot on (down in the comments). There was no such thing as PAN POTS back in those days, it was a hard switching system!
Beach Boys did it as well.
Paul doesn't speak as if he's actually that knowledgeable about the Beatles work or their recording practices. They (or George Martin) were using what we call "true stereo" fairly early on and if you listen to good, analog, stereo recordings you'll hear this. They DID get better as time went on and Sgt. Pepper's was quite a revelation when first heard back in 1967. But good, quality, analog, Stereo recordings were being released in the middle 1950s and after with RCA Victor's "Living Stereo," Mercury's "Living Presence," London's "Phase 4" Stereo and more. For most of us today, stereo is the only way to go. Mono certainly has many positive points, depending on what recordings you're talking about, but Stereo is, and has been for some time, state of the art.
Some recording engineers didn't know what the real purpose of stereo was,
and in the absence of proper instruction they did as they pleased.
The idea that panning to the center was not possible is silly.
1960's experiments if I remember? Let's see, Frank SInatra, Simon & Garfunkel, Nat King Cole.....
Ok that was a good question and great answer. But now we have to address the elephant in the room. Most amplifiers don’t produce the exact same wattage through both speakers. They can be a watt or two off or even up to 5 or 6 watts off. My thought would be this would effect how well an amp images. It would be a good question to sent to paul. If anyone has his email feel free to steal that question or if you have an answer feel free to leave a comment
Kind of true Paul, but with reference to The Beatles, George Martin kinda-got the stereo image nice and balanced with the albums Beatles For Sale, Hard Days Night and Help, but crucially decided, deliberately, to mix stereo Rubber Soul in the same manner as Please Please Me and With The - record it with a 'dead centre'. This has something to do with the fact that stereo recordings with a centre channel had been reported to sound bad on mono turntables, so by removing the centre channel from the stereo image, made for a better sounding record if played on mono equipment. Big mistake by George Martin IMO, which is why we need a new remix from Giles asap.
Rubber Soul is still a phenomenal record, especially the 2009 remaster.
@@bilguana11 yes, great record, not so great production. Did you know the 2009 remaster is the remaster of the 1987 mix where George Martin added a ton of 80s reverb all over it, then saved the entire thing to 16bit DAT? No, the real 'official' version to listen to is the remaster of the original 1965 stereo mix that can be found on the mono box set. :)
Another argument for these hard left/right recordings was money. When most pop music of the day was played back on AM radio or mono turntables, there was little financial incentive to spend time making great stereo recordings.
To set the record straight, The Beatles used two, four track machines. That would give them at least 8 tracks. So, the cliche about them using only four tracks is kind of Beatles folklore. If I remember right, the four track machines used were Struder brand. Interestingly, in the early 70's, Teac introduced the first prosumer level four track (multitrack) for musicians (the tape traveled in one direction with all four tracks playing.) This enabled a lot of people to record with four tracks. This was a big deal, back in those days. Lots of guys did multitrack recording, unlike The Beatles, with TRULY, only four tracks (not like the 8 tracks that The Beatles used.) This was a challenge. I did this on my first rock/country CD (although I had MIDI, so I have more "virtual tracks." ) The reason for the challenge is that you had to "premix" sounds, before other tracks were even recorded. What I mean by this is, say you wanted the rhythm section to be recorded. You'd use 3 tracks for bass, drum, and rhythm guitar. Then you'd bump these three tracks down to the fourth track. These instruments would all be mixed, together, and put on the fourth track. The trick here is you couldn't hear the other tracks that would be recorded later (over what was now occupying tracks 1,2 and 3) like the lead guitar, the vocal, or harmonies. You had to hear in your mind, how much bass, rhythm guitar, and drum would be needed, without hearing the other tracks. And, once this was done, this was a permanent mix on the fourth track, because tracks 1,2 and 3 would be soon occupied by new recordings. This was a real challenge. I was lucky enough to be able to stripe a tone on one track and use MIDI for some of my instruments. This, essentially gave me more tracks, but I still had to do premixing with tracks, and that was a real challenge. If you're curious, here is a link to a song that I recorded on my Tascam 22-4. This was one man band stuff. The bass is MIDI and the Drum is MIDI. The harmonies, and vocals, and all guitars were real, live instruments. I wish that I kept that machine. It would be a cool old dinosaur. ruclips.net/video/-HzC74nMFh0/видео.html
It's a bit misleading to say The Beatles had 8 tracks. They really didn't because it's not like they synced two 4-tracks to get 8. That wasn't possible. They could bounce 4 tracks down to 1 track fo the 2nd maching... then add 3 new tracks, and bounce those 7 tracks down to 1 track, and then add 3 more, but by then the original 3 tracks would be suffering 2 generation losses.
@@TheMirolab If you record even 3 tracks on one recorder, then transfer all three of them to one track on a second recorder, you've got three tracks. If you reuse the 3 tracks on the first machine to record three more tracks, then mix them all down to the 2nd track on the second recorder, you're now up to 6 tracks. If you repeat this process, you'll get 9 tracks, and if you repeat it again, you'll get 12 tracks. This is just one way to get more than 4 tracks on two, four track recorders. Sgt. Peppers was not done, entirely on a four track recorder. They had more tracks to work with, than that. In addition to this track issue is the people issue: The Beatles had 5 primary people working on the tracks (Martin WAS the 5th Beatle) and crews of horn and string players on various songs, on their recordings. So, even on one track, they could get 25 people, playing or singing, included on it. Les Paul actually did more impressive stuff, as an individual than any of the Beatles did, individually, when it comes to technical stuff. Les Paul was de facto multi tracking, by himself, back in the 1950s. Also, the movie industry had been using special effects for a long time. The hyperbole involved with Sgt. Pepper's can be a little over the top. By the way, McCartney's Bowl Of Cherries album may have been a pretty good display of one guy with a four track.
Just set your processor to all channel stereo, then turn off the front 3 channels of your surround set up and listen… that is precisely what you’d get. It’s not terrible….but, certainly not ideal.
I'm just now realizing they placed the musicians in the older stereo mixes like how they could be placed on a stage when playing live. Bass player all the way to the left etc.
When actually listening I think it sounds very unnatural and hollow so I'm glad it's hardly ever done nowadays. Sorry to all the fans of this unique way of mixing music.
The Beatles had only 4 tracks to do their recordings , up to the Abbey Road Album
Early recordings by the Hollies and the Move had the same awful stereo as the beatles
I remember those recording from the Good Old Days.
They sounded like shit.
Somethings are best forgotten.
First Stereo album from Elvis is the 1960 album Elvis is Back. The sound of that Album is fantastic.
Those early stereo recordings sound artificial and very "electronic" due to lack of "panning". Early sold state pre-amps hand "blend" circuits to alleviate this problem. Nobody puts those circuits on equipment anymore.
Paul, in this video, you explained how panning gives the illusion of placement between the speakers.
How about placement beyond the outer edges of the speakers?
There are songs that go well beyond the outer edges of the speakers. How is that done?
I think it has to do with phasing of the waveforms. There used to be old CD (and cassettte) boomboxes that had a button you could push that would do this to give the little boombox a wider, "bigger" sound, sometimes at the expense of the center image. Some reviewers comment that they use a track by Tool called Chocolate Chip Trip that has a tone being panned left and right to test speaker imaging and that on really good speakers, the sound goes out beyond the left and right speakers. I have some old ADS L520 speakers in my bedroom in a not very optimal placement, yet on some recordings I swear the sound is coming from another room. Pretty neat. (And sometimes scary!).
@@rosswarren436 "...sometimes at the expense of the center image."
No trade-offs, for my question.
There are songs that have a focused center image, and a wider-than-your-speakers soundstage. All of it focused.
I do not believe any tricks were played, post recording, to accomplish the wide soundstage (but perhaps it is studio gimmickry done really well?). It simply sounds like the band was spread out, and that comes through in the recording.
If it is studio gimmickry, I would like to know how they pull it off.
QSound will produce a very wide soundstage. It sounds amazing. But you can tell that it is not real. It is as real as something that is not real can sound.
Wikipedia has a page on QSound, and lists albums that were recorded with it.
I own Madonna's Immaculate Collection, which has QSound. It is a wild ride listening to it (but it varies song-to-song). But as good as it sounds (and it sounds really, really good), you can tell that it is not real.
I would like to know how "real" wider-than-your-speakers soundstages are recorded.
@@NoEgg4u listen to the track I mentioned, Chocolate Chip Trip and see how it does on your speakers. It was obviously created in such a manner to offer excellent imaging without sacrificing the center image.
But yes, it is phasing (differences between the channels and even between frequencies) that can create auditory illusions for a very wide soundstage.
Those old boomboxes did it to an extreme level just as an "effect", not caring about any perceived accuracy or the center image.
Then Dolby came along and screw everything. And still doing on you , 4 k discs
Wasn't it also a lot of "bragging factor" so that guests would now that the host/place was modern/rich enough to have a "stereo" instead of just a gramophone?
I personally don‘t like those recordings separate drums to the left and sax to the right or vice versa. To me this sounds not like „the real thing“ and very amateurish as well! Not good!
That’s why I never buy into new technology until The problems have been rung out. I never ever liked that type of recording. The sound was so phoney.
wrong.. lol
1st .
ruclips.net/video/gCCD40eB-cU/видео.html