The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
It's all to clear/clean sounding ...
Old 22nd August 2013
  #31
Lives for gear
 
vincentvangogo's Avatar
 

My understanding is they only manually-oscillated the second tape machine if they wanted a phasey/flanging effect (eg gtr solo on While My Guitar Gently Weeps.) Most of the time it was left as is and might have oscillated a little but not enough to go ahead of the original signal.
Old 22nd August 2013
  #32
Gax
Lives for gear
 
Gax's Avatar
 

I apologize in advance because I'm on totally opposite path then OP, but I find it easier to get dirty old-school sonic quality then to create proper crystal clean (not typical raw sterile), life-like 3D recording and mix. Plugins are awesome but they lack depth (only noticeable when working with acoustic music, when its EDM - it isnt.) and then proper high-end clean rec & mixing setups can come more expensive then over-priced vintage outboard and consoles.

Still I dont understand why majority of gearslut people tend to move backwards to the era where pioneers of recording wanted whats available today...
Old 22nd August 2013
  #33
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
flatwounds on the geee tar ?
Old 22nd August 2013
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
flatwounds on the geee tar ?
yeah, ordered them. still waiting on them to come.
Old 22nd August 2013
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by donnylang View Post
I think maybe the amp gain sounds really modern?

you really just need to think simplicity ... there was no crazy stuff going on, they were just recording the band.

I don't study the Beatles, but I do study the Beach Boys, and can get into the area of their mid-'60s guitar sounds fairly easily. The most important thing is the playing and the right guitar.

My advice for getting old sounds is to focus on the meat and potatoes ...

Here are a couple examples of me noodling on some Beach Boys licks -- you'd likely be surprised to find out how straightforward it was !



(some links to the originals for comparison)

CALIFORNIA GIRLS The Beach Boys MM images - YouTube

Sloop John B Instrumental by the Beach Boys - YouTube

Beach Boys - Wouldn't It Be Nice - YouTube
sounds good. but the beach boys had a clear sound, so i guess it's easier to get their sound.
Old 22nd August 2013
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Jazz Noise's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinzin View Post
yeah, ordered them. still waiting on them to come.
They do make a difference.

What pickups are you using? And for clean parts, I'd expect compression by the bucketload. Slowish attack, fast release. The guitar solo on Nowhere Man, the acoustic guitar on I'm Only Sleeping are the two examples I can think of right now. If you've room mic/emulation or a spring reverb, that'll most likely be pre compression too.

The stereo mixes have noticably less aggressive compression. I think the Monos may be better reference for the earlier stuff because the 4 were in on the mix session and you can see where they were trying to push things.
Old 22nd August 2013
  #37
Lives for gear
 
vincentvangogo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gax View Post
...Still I dont understand why majority of gearslut people tend to move backwards to the era where pioneers of recording wanted whats available today...
Yes and no. Geoff Emerick said they were very disappointed when EMI replaced the valve desks. In the 70's Lennon found the echos etc not as good as at EMI and Paul continues to use a lot of the old gear.
Old 22nd August 2013
  #38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazz Noise View Post
They do make a difference.

What pickups are you using? And for clean parts, I'd expect compression by the bucketload. Slowish attack, fast release. The guitar solo on Nowhere Man, the acoustic guitar on I'm Only Sleeping are the two examples I can think of right now. If you've room mic/emulation or a spring reverb, that'll most likely be pre compression too.

The stereo mixes have noticably less aggressive compression. I think the Monos may be better reference for the earlier stuff because the 4 were in on the mix session and you can see where they were trying to push things.
for the first example i used a gretsch tennessee with filtertron pickups. the 2nd exampe uses a gretsch tennessee with hi-lo pickups, which is closer in sound to those early beatles sounds.
for compression i used the liquid mix fairchild with the setting number 1, fast attack and release.
Old 22nd August 2013
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gax View Post
Still I dont understand why majority of gearslut people tend to move backwards to the era where pioneers of recording wanted whats available today...
well it's not for all my projects, when i think something "old" sounding is required i try to get for that. but on other project i go for "newer" sounds when needed.
and yeah, it's also a bit of a taste thing. the "new" sounds, especially the US commercial sounds are not so my cup of tea: very slick, edited, interchangeable sounds. i love to capture the sound as it is, the guitar and amp should still sound like in real life after recording/mixing, and that's more the retro sound/way of doing it.
nowadays you don't hear what guitar/amp has been used - it all sounds the same after the "processing".
Old 22nd August 2013
  #40
Lives for gear
 

The new version sounds pretty close. But definitely wait until you get flats. What kind did you order?
Old 22nd August 2013
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Jazz Noise's Avatar
Just listened, I think the flats will make a difference definitely. The overdrive is quite modern - I'd advise less overdrive and hitting the strings harder.

What amp did you use for the 2nd clip? The Vox again? How were things set?

I remember the whole Revolution guitar tone came from John cranking the life out of his amp for a super nasty guitar tone. Power amp distortion is a factor.
Old 22nd August 2013
  #42
Lives for gear
 
vincentvangogo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazz Noise View Post
Just listened, I think the flats will make a difference definitely. The overdrive is quite modern - I'd advise less overdrive and hitting the strings harder.

What amp did you use for the 2nd clip? The Vox again? How were things set?

I remember the whole Revolution guitar tone came from John cranking the life out of his amp for a super nasty guitar tone. Power amp distortion is a factor.
I believe the guitars on Revolution were DI'd with the desk providing the distortion.
Old 23rd August 2013
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
The new version sounds pretty close. But definitely wait until you get flats. What kind did you order?
i ordered pyramid and thomastik, to see which one i like better.
always the vox ac15c1 in use. bass at "0" and treble maybe 30% up, tone-cut rather down.
Old 23rd August 2013
  #44
Gear Maniac
 

I'd say pull the mic back a good bit, but I also suspect the amp eq needs to change. Set the amp cleaner but turn it up a lot louder, the distortion I'm hearing is clipping too much on the treble attack.
Old 23rd August 2013
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Jazz Noise's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincentvangogo View Post
I believe the guitars on Revolution were DI'd with the desk providing the distortion.
I'd forgotten that part, they wired a preamp into a preamp to get that happening. But the inginuity came from Johns stupidly loud overdrive sound.

ZinZin, you're cutting an awful lot of low end. Leave the low end up abit and use some low shelving to get it back the other way. The idea being that you'll get to distort the low end abit without still having all that bass.
Old 23rd August 2013
  #46
^^^thanks for the tips above!
Old 23rd August 2013
  #47
Gear Maniac
 
Multicore's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vincentvangogo View Post
My understanding is they only manually-oscillated the second tape machine if they wanted a phasey/flanging effect (eg gtr solo on While My Guitar Gently Weeps.) Most of the time it was left as is and might have oscillated a little but not enough to go ahead of the original signal.
It was kind of all over the map, but if you don't have it already buy the book "Recording The Beatles" the usage of all the studio tricks and effects is highly outlined to great detail. If they didn't oscillate the other machine, it just ended up being straight delay without any modulation. But yes generally it sounded best at around 30ms or somewhere in that range (10 to 50) to get the "doubled" sound. It could however be adjusted to be before or after.

Eric Claptons solo on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" was indeed pretty wobbly. They also did heavy wobbling on the organ on that track. Chris Thomas had the boring job of wobbling the Levell TG-150M arm changing the tape speed of the BTR2 for hours.


The Beatles themselves took turn wobbling the oscillator on their songs. It could only be applied at mixdown, or or submixing / bouncing. Never during recording. They pretty much used it on everything.
Old 23rd August 2013
  #48
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

For a more grinding wall of sound keyboard part, try running the keyboard through a big block amp and mic it at a distance, pushing the amp to the edge of clean to crunch.

You can definitely hear John did not play timid and he had those parts down enough to sing lead & complex harmonies over most of them.

I'm still humbled by their capabilities as multi-musicians.
Old 23rd August 2013
  #49
Gear Maniac
 
Multicore's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gax View Post
Still I dont understand why majority of gearslut people tend to move backwards to the era where pioneers of recording wanted whats available today...
Oh, you mean like this typical gearslut?


Portlandia - "The Studio" - YouTube
Old 23rd August 2013
  #50
11413
Guest
2 full pages and still no mention of TAPE???

Old 23rd August 2013
  #51
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

The thing for me is to borrow highlights from the past and not to be totally consumed by any one influence.
Old 23rd August 2013
  #52
Gear Maniac
 
Multicore's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11413 View Post
2 full pages and still no mention of TAPE???

Hey...I mentioned tape
Old 23rd August 2013
  #53
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multicore View Post
Hey...I mentioned tape
Tubes and hand wired circuitry for a full bodied, warm fuzzy glow.

Before you wipe what may be a perfectly good guitar part, try overdubbing bass to see how the guitar tone sits in the mix.

When you play guitar solo it is easy to add too much low end, trying to
Be The Band, rather than being just the guitar part in the mix.
Old 24th August 2013
  #54
Gear Addict
 
spurratic's Avatar
Bump for recording the Beatles.....it's like the Beatles recording bible. More detail than you could ever want.

it is likely the bouncing down and group Eqing that is hard to reproduce, they would often bounce down vox and guitars together an therefore at mix time the Eq would be affecting multiple instruments together.....so if they wanted 5k on the vocals, the guitars got it too.

They also state in the book how little record was kept of what amps and guitars they ACTUALLY used. Ie everyone wants to think they tracked everything with ac30's and Paul used his Hofner bass always but in reality they used different pieces. but in many pictures they grabbed their signature instruments for image sake.

Bleed between mics was also a huge part of the sound, and some of their earlier engineers actually used bleed as a tool to get a more raw, full sound.
Attached Thumbnails
It's all to clear/clean sounding ...-imageuploadedbygearslutz1377315824.800913.jpg  
Old 24th August 2013
  #55
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

I have had that book on my Christmas wish list forever.
My daughter's said it was out of print.

I keep hoping they get a copy eventually.
Old 24th August 2013
  #56
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTT View Post
I have had that book on my Christmas wish list forever.
My daughter's said it was out of print.

I keep hoping they get a copy eventually.
You can still get it. My dad had the original print from 1988, it got damaged by water and he immediately replaced it, that was about 3 years ago. I'm sure its still available.

One thing the book details very interestingly, is that sometimes the Beatles would want more eq than was available on the desk - meaning the engineer would have the mids or "top" fully boosted for example, and they would still want more. So apparently they would run the desk into a second desk and then add additional eq there - obviously that sends the signal through a lot of circuit, all tube based at the time! Based on my reading, they seemed to spend a lot of time eq'ing, not necessarily very carefully either. Major boosts and cuts without a thought. Forget this precision point parametric nonsense. They would also superimpose takes from various reels - so there was a lot of what today would seem like odd techniques happening. So, if you're recording straight to a DAW from some outboard that is about as far away from their technique as possible. You should try to do a bunch of generations of AD/DA running through as much outboard as possible. Maybe even line out into the vox, then double reamp the signal. Just get crazy with it.
Old 24th August 2013
  #57
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by durocortorum View Post
Those vocals sound really close.. Mind me asking what's in the signal chain ?
And is there a precise john lennon way of eq'ing vocals?
I seem to recall Lennon thought the U47 was too dark sounding and he used to tell the engineers to add "full top". So, presumably boosted highs?

It looks like they ran huge runs of cable too, I don't know if they were into this "shortest possible signal path" thing back then. They were probably loosing signal strength wouldn't you think? ****, the entire band and engineering team were all smoking around the equipment 24/7, nowadays people would freak out if you were blowing smoke right on a U47's capsule. You never see pop screens in the Beatles' sessions either. The capsules were probably filthy. Maybe you literally need some "dirt" in the chain
Old 24th August 2013
  #58
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

During the rooftop concert the mic's looked like they were a good 24" away from the amp grill cloths and McCartney's bass mic was way out in front at the bass cab's projection point. Of all the things they were doing electronically, they were also using
placement a lot to pre balance the live mix.
Old 24th August 2013
  #59
Gear Guru
 
FFTT's Avatar
 

I sent my daughter a reminder :-)

On getting a signal hot enough,

The pro engineers will laugh, but I used to run my AKG C1000 condenser mic
through my Digitech tube guitar preamp, on the clean tube pre-set to get the mic signal searing hot and ultra sensitive. So I turned a crappy condenser into a less crappy tube condenser.

Used this mostly for vocals & acoustic guitar tracks but also used it for room while also using a Beta 58 on my Blues Deluxe Wide Open for leads.

You could also try patching the signal you have already recorded through another more aggressive amp to add some grit.




Quote:
Originally Posted by JMN View Post
You can still get it. My dad had the original print from 1988, it got damaged by water and he immediately replaced it, that was about 3 years ago. I'm sure its still available.

One thing the book details very interestingly, is that sometimes the Beatles would want more eq than was available on the desk - meaning the engineer would have the mids or "top" fully boosted for example, and they would still want more. So apparently they would run the desk into a second desk and then add additional eq there - obviously that sends the signal through a lot of circuit, all tube based at the time! Based on my reading, they seemed to spend a lot of time eq'ing, not necessarily very carefully either. Major boosts and cuts without a thought. Forget this precision point parametric nonsense. They would also superimpose takes from various reels - so there was a lot of what today would seem like odd techniques happening. So, if you're recording straight to a DAW from some outboard that is about as far away from their technique as possible. You should try to do a bunch of generations of AD/DA running through as much outboard as possible. Maybe even line out into the vox, then double reamp the signal. Just get crazy with it.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump