Beatles Sound Terrible on My Fortes

[nitrofan]

The Beatles sound horrible on any speaker I've ever heard them on. 

[babadono]

Just now, nitrofan said:

The Beatles sound horrible on any speaker I've ever heard them on. 

Not a fan huh?

[rplace]

16 minutes ago, nitrofan said:

The Beatles sound horrible on any speaker I've ever heard them on. 

 

Where is Marty @thebes on this. I've been waiting for a witty comment...or at least half of that.

[babadono]

11 minutes ago, rplace said:

 

Where is Marty @thebes on this. I've been waiting for a witty comment...or at least half of that.

Maybe thebes and nitrofan are one in the same🖖

[Chris A]

33 minutes ago, babadono said:

What was George Martin thinking/doing? The fact that some parts are on the left and some on the right means they had more than a 1 track tape recorder. So did there mixing desk not have a pan pot? Or what?

 

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me#Recording.

[Max2]

The White album doesn't seem too bad.   Love and St. Peppers are out in multi channel,  you might give these a shot.  

Come to think of it, the vocals on quite a few songs on White are good, but I think the board runners got a little happy with hot channels in the guitars and such in areas, but hey, it was the 60's then.

[Tony Whitlow]

 
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me#Recording.

They were recorded for mono release only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JJkizak]

I have every Beatles album except maybe some compilations of later stuff. The bass tone control always had to be turned up and the treble somewhat. For some reason they didn't like a lot of bass on their recordings as fussy as they were. Drums the same way. I attribute that to "symphonic" engineers in control the same way they record orchestras. Rock & Roll is bass and drums first and maybe the  rest second with the screaming voice third. Remember that they purposely cut the base back 12 db to prevent the large bass grooves from interfering with each other.

JJK

[ODS123]

My gripes about their sound quality aside  I would find it impossible to turn my nose up at any of their catalog because of poor mixing, equalizing, etc.    The Beatles went from the sugar sweet pop of Love Me Do to make-me-wanna break stuff Adrenalin of Helter Skelter in a few short years,  and in each of these iterations they were unlike anything else before them. I’ll take their music any way I can get it.   

[babadono]

9 hours ago, ODS123 said:

I’ll take their music any way I can get it.   

Me too. Their influence on me cannot be denied.

[babadono]

3 hours ago, Chris A said:

 

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me#Recording.

So they only had 2 tracks at the beginning of their recording careers. And yet the musical genius cannot be denied. And I don't care what thebes says.

[wvu80]

17 hours ago, Mark51 said:

I'm finding that stuff that is well recorded sounds marvelous, especially small jazz ensembles.  But Beatles recordings, with a few exceptions, sound terribly bright. 

 

The thread is centered on the Beatles bright sound but it sounds like you have your answer from your first post.  The speakers are fine and your recordings all sound good with the exception of the Beatles stuff which I think most people responding have clarified probably were not recorded with a full audio spectrum.

 

Sound about right?

[garyrc]

10 hours ago, pzannucci said:

  Nice, warm, and cozy (if you can say that about their music and sound).

 

That would apply to the vinyl versions of Norwegian Wood, She's Leaving Home, and many others.  I don't know what happened to the CDs.  I'm not one who thinks that all vinyl is better than all CDs of music in general.   I'd say that a little less than half of the Beatles songs are well recorded on vinyl, and fewer on CD.   Back in the '60s, audiophiles would just say, "Well that's the Beatles," then sit back and enjoy (at least I did).   The CDs may have been transferred at too high a level, kicking in the horrible CD over-recording distortion.   Or, they may be yet another victim of "re-mastering."

[garyrc]

9 hours ago, ODS123 said:

I long ago gave up on the idea of a perfect speaker that makes all music sound great. No such speaker exists. This is why I advocate that people use preamp’s/integrated amplifiers/or AVR receivers that feature tone controls.   When zeroed tone-controls do absolutely no audible harm to the signal, but  can do all sorts of magic when listening to music like you described.  

 

 In addition to tone-controls when listening to the Beatles I find myself often using the mono switch on my integrated amp as well.  I find the mixing on some songs whereby all of the guitar comes from one speaker and all of the vocal from the other to be incredibly irritating.  And certainly not at all lifelike. 

 

Viva la tone controls and mono switch!!!

 

The later Beatles albums make good use of stereo, IMO.

 

I think the dropping of tone controls is one of the biggest mistakes the audio industry ever made.  I understand the part of the "purist" position that is that removing excess circuitry can be a benefit, but I think it is far outweighed by the help tone controls can provide by

partially compensate for music companies artlessly messing around with the sound, and, yes, adjusting the sound to your preference.  I once had a Luxman that had tone controls that provided 3 choices of turnover frequency for both treble and bass, plus a variety of other devices to customize the sound, like a low boost switch at either 70 Hz or 150 Hz, various cut switches, etc.  My manipulations of these always resulted in a better sounding recording, IMO.  "Purists" should keep in mind that there probably is no such thing as a flat recording, speaker or room. 

 

On the Beatles recordings, which do sound "bright" I wouldn't start by turning down the treble, because the very high treble -- above 10,000 Hz -- may need a boost relatively speaking.  If we look at the correction curve Chris A posted (reproduced below) for Sgt. Pepper (the song), and arbitrarily make 1,000 Hz the reference point (as is traditional in many frequency response measurements), we find that it is the upper midrange (1,500 Hz to 5,000 Hz) that needs cutting.  The high treble (above 10 K Hz) actually needs boosting, relative to 1,000 Hz, by 7 dB!   That doesn't surprise me; I would hate cutting out some of the Beatles sparkle above 10,000, providing it is not distorted.  Well, you don't have a way to turn down just the upper midrange on most preamps/receivers, so you need to look else where for a solution.  Notice that the correction curve Chris posted calls for a boost of about 7 or 8 dB from 38 Hz to 90 Hz, and, maybe 11dB or 12 dB below 38 dB, all relative to 1,000 Hz.  You might start by turning up the bass by about 8 to 10 dB (and turn down the volume by a subjectively like amount) and do the rest by ear.  You would be taking steps toward restoring the balance, which is what counts.  Perhaps a better way is to close your eyes and operate the bass control without looking at it, and adjust the balance by ear, then check to see how many dB you have boosted (if your receiver or preamp has a read-out or if there is a useful graph in the manual.  All this is very approximate, but so is plunking the disk on, or engaging streaming, and just playing whatever they put on it.    Haul out your copy of Sgt. Pepper (the song) and give it a try!  See which version you like best.  Of course, to do it thoroughly, you could read Chris A's posts on demastering, and learn the technique.

14 hours ago, Chris A said:

 

If you applied this curve to your preamp while playing this Beatles song, you wouldn't be complaining about the brightness. 

 

When I had my Luxman, many records required me to use the steepest treble comp curve, which was also the least drastic in terms of number of dB of compensation provided.  Full clockwise rotation provided a boost if 7 dB at 16K Hz.  That setting also provided 3 dB boost at 7K Hz, and barely did anything at 5K Hz.  With most recordings I used a boost of 6 dB or 7dB at 16K.  I also boosted the bass with the Low Boost at the 70 Hz position of the switch (+3 dB), and used the bass tone control at the lowest turnover, to taste.

 

Some of my past results may have been due, in part, to the speakers and room.  Now, in a new and bigger, treated room, with the same Klipschorns, I have Audyssey.  It measures room/speaker response at the listening positions, and applies compensation.  What does it do?  A 2.5 dB dB boost at both 16K Hz, and 12.5K, and less at 10K and 8K, all relative to 0 at 1K.   It "thinks" I don't need bass compensation above about 40 Hz, but I add some manually, trusting my ears.

[garyrc]

4 hours ago, JJkizak said:

I have every Beatles album except maybe some compilations of later stuff. The bass tone control always had to be turned up and the treble somewhat.

 

True, on the albums I have.

[rebuy]

This is why I use an EQ and not audssey.

I know what I personally like in sound and that's what I get.

[Mark51]

13 hours ago, Chris A said:

I demastered all the Beatles albums that I own because they sounded pretty awful on the dialed-in Jubs.  They sound much better now, in fact some of them sound pretty amazing considering what they were recorded with.  Early Beatles albums generally sound worse than later albums.

 

Beatles albums in my FLAC library:

• 1962-1966 (disc 1); 1962-1966 (disc 2): DR Database ratings: 11, 12
• 1967-1970 (disc 1); 1967-1970 (disc 2): DR Database ratings 11, 11
• Past Masters - Volume One;  DR Database rating 12
• Past Masters · Volume Two; DR Database rating 10
• Revolver [2009 Stereo Remaster]; DR Database rating 10
• Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band; DR Database rating 12
• White Album (disc 1); White Album (disc 2) DR Database ratings 12, 12
• Abbey Road: DR database rating 10

Generally, the higher the DR Database rating, the better they sound.

 

Chris

How do you demaster a recording?

[Chris A]

That information is largely found here:

 

[Chris A]

14 hours ago, garyrc said:

When I had my Luxman, many records required me to use the steepest treble comp curve, which was also the least drastic in terms of number of dB of compensation provided.  Full clockwise rotation provided a boost if 7 dB at 16K Hz.  That setting also provided 3 dB boost at 7K Hz, and barely did anything at 5K Hz.  With most recordings I used a boost of 6 dB or 7dB at 16K.  I also boosted the bass with the Low Boost at the 70 Hz position of the switch (+3 dB), and used the bass tone control at the lowest turnover, to taste.

Most turnover frequencies on treble tone controls are apparently more like 3.5K, so your experience with the Luxman was a bit more rare, but you were doing what many people did in the past (and the record companies expected you to do it if you wanted more reasonable timbre balance on higher quality hi-fi systems).  The bass turnover frequency on most preamps is usually at 450 Hz, but some use 350 Hz.

[Harleywood]

Replace those old 60's LP's with new remastered vinyl. Most are selling for $20 and are well worth it. That's what I did and they are some of the best sounding LP's I have going through my Rotel RA1570 with tone bypass on. The Remastered Mono version of the White Album is like having John and Paul in my listening room singing directly to me. Simply wonderful.