From: dbk@cs.umd.edu (Dan Kozak)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Stereo vs. Twin-track and other recording nits
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:40:27 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Jul30.170554.17444@news.columbia.edu> brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan) writes:
>I think what we're seeing is George Martin's gradual
>conversion from a way of working he used for twin-track-- interesting
>to study.  Once you study "Beatles Recording Sessions" and start
>listening closely, I think you can pick out the 4 tracks on almost all
>the recordings up to 1968!

I agree.  I'm currently at work on a little project that involves
doing just that, sort of a reverse-engineering of actual track
listings for this stuff.

[The general model for track assignments for 63-65 era] 
The tape box reproduction in Lewisohn p. 48 and recording sheet on p.
51 confirm this.  Since it seems that after a while there aren't track
assignments on the recording sheets, I suspect that they only put them
on the tape boxes (see p. 168 & 172), but it also suggests that they
generally followed a pattern, most likely because it makes mixing go
quicker.

>The stereo mixes also follow a general model-- track 1 left, track 2
>lead vocal center, and the other stuff right.

>Now from "Help!" to "Rubber Soul" we get a sharp change in the way the
>stereo is mixed.

In what way?  The rhythm is still on the left, by and large . . . 

>That GM interview in _Mix_ magazine (1987) brought
>up this point.  GM said he was trying to fix the stereo so it would
>sound OK played on a mono player!-- I guess the "compatible stereo"
>cutting process had come out around then.  It has something to do with
>things mixed to center coming out less loudly than things mixed to
>either side.  Does that sound right?

Yes, that makes sense.  I'm going to have to get my hands on that
interview . . . it sounds like important source material, even if he's
denying things we all know he did. :-) :-)

> He said he regretted doing it later.

It is certainly a boon to those interested in the recording process, tho'.

>(This carries the idea of mixing for mono one weird step further,
>doesn't it!

Indeed it does, but given that stereo was really a luxury for most of
the people buying these records, not to mention that radio was mono,
mono compatibility was a much bigger issue then, even for stereo
records.  I suspect that people in the US were much quicker to move to
stereo (all my early Beatles LPs were bought at the time of release by
my aunt, a teenybopper at the time, and are all "stereo") but one can
hardly expect GM and Co. to be aware of that.

>Thanks for the comments on the twin-track, regarding leakage during
>recording, and crosstalk on the LPs.  I'm not convinced that's all it
>is, but I forgot to consider that.

[Caveat: for the early stuff I'm working from Capitol releases by and
large] You are correct that for some tracks there is reverb-echo-STEED
what-have-you that is mixed center causing there to be traces of
whatever track(s) it is applied to to appear on the other side.  But
leakage certainly plays a big part in the instrumental sound getting
over to the right.  Listening to the intro of "Roll Over Beethoven"
you can hear the following:

	Left:	Guitar intro
	Right:	Reverb of the left side, no original

	Left:	Band kicks in
	Right:	Reverb return of left side, SI of handclaps, possibly
		some headphone leakage???

	Right:	still handclaps, but right before the vocal starts, a
		huge fade up of non-reverbed instrumental track,
		mostly the high end, suggesting leakage during the
		recording

I imagine that when they put the handclaps on via sound-on-sound they
kept the vocal track mixed out until right before the singing started,
probably to make the intro a little cleaner (you'd be more likely to
hear the effects of leakage when there's just that one guitar than
when the whole band is playing).  Also at the end, after the last
vocal line, the instrumental leakage on the vocal side is faded down
before the end of the track.  Just incidentally, the lead guitar solo
is on the vocal side, even tho' the intro and outro (an edit piece)
are with the rest of the instruments.  Lewisohn doesn't specify what
the overdub (SI) was--my guess is that it is the handclaps and the
guitar solo. (I'm going to leave the thorny issue of what the "Track
One" and "Track Two" notations on the recording sheet mean for another
time.)  Also supporting the leakage theory a bit is that the content
of the instrumental portion of the vocal side varies depending on who
is singing--there's far more bass guitar on the vocal track of songs
that Paul sings on, presumably because he and his vocal mike were
located in closer proximity to his amp.

As for the very faint vocal on the instrumental side, I'd attribute
that mainly to crosstalk.  I don't hear any reverb added to the vocal,
maybe a little room ambience, but nothing like what is added to the
guitar intro.  The handclaps would trigger the reverb quite strongly
(and they sound totally dry) so if there is any artifical
reverberation it would have been added to the vocal during the bounce,
not the mix.  In any case I can't hear any reverb return on the
instrumental side, only a very faint direct vocal and guitar solo.  I
think it's crosstalk. :-)

>I think the compression on "Roll
>over Beethoven" is on the Capitol remix-- "Meet the Beatles"
>definitely has more mixing of the channels than "With the Beatles"--
>it's dramatic when you play one after the other.  Capitol apparently
>did this by mixing the already mixed tapes from EMI.  Sheesh.  

Adding compression during mastering is/was quite common, so I'd
venture that it was just a product of laziness--it's easier to just
compress the whole lot than it is to set the levels right for each
track.

>Check
>out ROB on the "Rock and Roll Music" LP-- GM moved the vocal to center,
>leaving the right side of the mix pretty empty.

I don't have this . . . what if anything _is_ only on the right?

#dan

Clever:         dbk@cs.umd.edu    | "Softly her tower crumbled in the 
Not-so-clever:  uunet!mimsy!dbk   |  sweet silent sun." - Nabokov