Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: The Beatles original mastering process back in the 60's

  1. #1
    Member The Czar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Twin Peaks
    Posts
    789

    The Beatles original mastering process back in the 60's

    I am curious if anyone knows what they originally did with the final mixes?
    I have the Complete Abbey road book, but don't remember them mentioning it.
    Did they master them or was it someone else?
    Part of the reason I want this info, is because I think things today are way too slick. And the Beatles sound amazing 45 + years later.

    Thanks
    " My advice is to get them off right after your shoes and before your trousers... that's the sock gap. Miss it and suddenly you're a naked man in socks. No self-respecting woman will let a naked man in socks do the squelchy with her. "

    http://thefairlysecretarmy.bandcamp.com/

    http://wavesofmercury.bandcamp.com/

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    52
    From what I understand, the band hung around for the mono mixes (the mono albums go from Please Please Me up to and including the White Album and the related singles) and then left it up to the "boffins", i.e. George Martin and the engineers. It took three weeks to mix Sgt. Peppers in mono, three days for the stereo mixes, that's how little they cared about the stereo mixes. The band wouldn't have had anything to do with the mastering, that was whoever was doing it at the time at Abbey Road.

    Here's a good article about the 2009 remasters:

    http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct0...sremasters.htm
    ...or you could love

  3. #3
    Member The Czar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Twin Peaks
    Posts
    789
    I just read that, thanks.

    My question is, after the mix was done, they didn't have all the stuff like plugins and ozone mastering programs...so how& what was done?
    In the 60's... not 87 or 2009

  4. #4
    The still had compressors, limiters and eqs. And used them in much the same way as today. Some of their 45s are quite compressed in their original masters.
    And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make.

  5. #5
    Generally that was all just considered to be the final stage of the mix process though, afaik. We now think of "mastering" as "send it to a guy who will add pixie dust and make it all louder and better than I can when I mix it". Back then mastering was just "correct obvious deficiencies in mixes if at all possible, make sure all masters (completed songs) sound consistent with each other and do any special processing required for a given medium (i.e., add RIAA eq for vinyl). If a mix sounded good, it was done. So I don't know if The Beatles "mastered" in the sense that we think of today, as an additional step in the mixing process and not just a process needed to put songs in a collection on a given medium, either 45 or LP vinyl usually. Correct me if I'm wrong...

  6. #6
    Member The Czar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Twin Peaks
    Posts
    789
    That's kind of what I thought.
    Does anyone have the original vinyl and can check if it even mentions mastering?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    52
    No, there's no mention of mastering on the original albums because, as trurl notes, the concept of mastering as you're thinking of it simply didn't exist when The Beatles were together. The final mix, whether mono or stereo, is what was important, the mastering was just quality control. Hell, it was considered groundbreaking for the lead engineer such as Geoff Emerick to even get a credit on the album covers!

    Back then mastering was just "correct obvious deficiencies in mixes if at all possible, make sure all masters (completed songs) sound consistent with each other and do any special processing required for a given medium (i.e., add RIAA eq for vinyl).
    Exactly. It has to be pointed out that when The Beatles were making records, the idea of spending, say, three days getting a good drum sound was unthinkable. It's amazing how quickly the stuff was recorded, even after they quit touring. While there were songs that had lots of overdubs (Penny Lane being a good example), something like The Ballad of John and Yoko was more typical.

    It was recorded in one 6 1/2 hour session on 4/14/69 with John and Paul (playing drums and percussion because Ringo was filming The Magic Christian with Peter Sellars; George was out of the country). George Martin and Geoff Emerick took two hours to mix it that night, it was released as a single on 5/30/69 and that was that.
    Last edited by Jeremy Bender; 07-30-2014 at 01:05 PM.
    ...or you could love

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy Bender View Post
    It was recorded in one 6 1/2 hour session on 4/14/69 with John and Paul (playing drums and percussion because Ringo was filming The Magic Christian with Peter Sellars; George was out of the country). George Martin and Geoff Emerick took two hours to mix it that night, it was released as a single on May 5/30/69 and that was that.
    And proof that John and Paul still had enough of a relationship to pull it off together. A really great song, IMO.
    "The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"

  9. #9
    Member The Czar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Twin Peaks
    Posts
    789
    So did "mastering" come at the time of cds then?
    If that's so, then it's a sham to me, because all my favorite albums came out before cds and they sound awesome.
    Take the Genesis stuff for example, don"t a lot of people think the original cds sound best?

    Where is Jeff Carney when we need him to comment?

  10. #10
    Jazzbo manqué Mister Triscuits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    5,389
    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    And proof that John and Paul still had enough of a relationship to pull it off together.
    Touching exchange during the recording session, while Paul was on drums:

    John: Go a bit faster, Ringo!
    Paul: OK, George.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by The Czar View Post
    So did "mastering" come at the time of cds then?
    No. Mastering wasn't just playing a tape to cut a record. Mastering engineers not only had to understand audio (as trurl pointed out) but also the physical aspects of using a cutting lathe. For example, for increased loudness (that producers demanded) the groove would be cut deeper. But, deeper meant also wider which reduced playing time. An engineer would have to ensure that the grooves did not cut into each other. Also, things changed from beginning to end as the radius of the groove decreased. Those were the days when engineers would use a microscope to examine their handiwork. (This is just a short overview. A lot more is involved, such as: distortion, sibilance, bass, etc.)

    Consider this too, today many home recordists buy software and think they can master their own tracks. Back then, no one had a home lathe. You had to go to a specialist.

  12. #12
    Yeah, vinyl mastering was (is) a true art. Someone who didn't know what they were doing could ruin a record. I remember Frank Zappa talking about providing detailed notes to cutting engineers on precise times to turn a de-esser on and off because a lot of them would be lazy and leave it on the whole time wrecking the high end.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    Yeah, vinyl mastering was (is) a true art. Someone who didn't know what they were doing could ruin a record. I remember Frank Zappa talking about providing detailed notes to cutting engineers on precise times to turn a de-esser on and off because a lot of them would be lazy and leave it on the whole time wrecking the high end.
    The "flip side" ( )to that is the musicians/mixers who drove the mastering engineers crazy by doing wacky things like putting a deep bass only in one channel or putting a cymbal and bass drum solo at the end of an LP side.
    (These are made up exaggerated examples.)

  14. #14
    Member The Czar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Twin Peaks
    Posts
    789
    But vinyl and cd mastering are far different from each other.

  15. #15
    In the very early days of cd I think generally master mix tapes were just run flat; the thinking was, "Hey, great; we don't have to do that special eq for vinyl and we have all the dynamic range we could ever need!" In other words an extremely audiophile approach by today's standards. I have no idea when the notion that extra brick-walling should be an intrinsic part of mastering for a digital release started to creep in. I would think that the idea of a mastering engineer polishing a final mix came about with project studios and home studios doing pro releases. I certainly remember sending our first album to Bob Katz, getting a cd back and thinking, "Wow, that sounds better than our master tape!" We didn't expect it. Bob would be an excellent guy to ask about all this. he probably has a blog or a column about it.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by The Czar View Post
    But vinyl and cd mastering are far different from each other.

    Back when music was recorded direct to disc, an engineer usually performed both functions, but after the introduction of tape, a mastering engineer became a specialty. Of course, there are differences in the final media, but there is overlap, also, just as a film camera operator and a video camera operator have to understand their different storage media's requirements (such as lighting, colors, contrast), and the different camera mechanisms, there is overlap in lenses, composition, etc.

    Anyway, "mastering" was around long before CDS, it just wasn't credited.

  17. #17
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by The Czar View Post
    But vinyl and cd mastering are far different from each other.
    LP & 45 mastering entails all sorts of compromises, including the RIAA curve (look it up) and limiting the dynamic range and rolling off the highs and lows to prevent the cutting lathe from freaking out. Back in the Beatles days they'd take the multi-track master (4, 8 or 16-tracks) and mix it down to a new mono or stereo tape. This became the "final master" from which the cutting engineer would create the vinyl stamper (often a 3rd generation tape copy was used, if the final master mix was difficult or valuable).

    Most early CDs were created from these later "pre-master" tapes (3rd gen or higher) before it was realized that the compromises for vinyl were no longer required for CDs. The Beatles CD catalog was one of the first to be cut directly from the 2nd generation final mixes.

    And some -- rarely -- went all the way back to the multi-tracks and cleaned up each track separately before creating a new digital master tape. These generally have difficulty recreating the original LP editing exactly.

  18. #18
    Member Paulrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Left Coast
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    I have no idea when the notion that extra brick-walling should be an intrinsic part of mastering for a digital release started to creep in.
    I always thought that had to do with people's habits changing to listening to music through iPhone ear buds and other such devices with small headphones, the thinking being that cranking the output would compensate for the device's weaker mechanics. That plus just "louder volume will help our music cut through the wall of other people's music and get noticed".
    I'm holding out for the Wilson-mixed 5.1 super-duper walletbuster special anniversary extra adjectives edition.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulrus View Post
    I always thought that had to do with people's habits changing to listening to music through iPhone ear buds and other such devices with small headphones, the thinking being that cranking the output would compensate for the device's weaker mechanics. That plus just "louder volume will help our music cut through the wall of other people's music and get noticed".
    That, but I think it goes back earlier, to songs being louder on the radio getting more attention. Ironically, there came a point when songs were mastered to be so consistently loud the radio stations' own compressors were kicking in and making the whole song softer than if it wasn't limited in the first place.

  20. #20
    Member Zeuhlmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    7,261
    As far as I know mastering today basicly is about

    Checking the volume level between tracks are the same
    Checking the overall sound should be the same - also if different studios has been used
    Removing sounds that shouldnt be there, or are sticking out of the mix
    Making sure the music gets out to the listener without unintended distortion + still keeping the headroom, which was more difficult with LP's.
    Today the problem with volume level is that when you raise it, dynamics tends to dissappear. The difference in volume between quiet and loud passages or transients from single instruments gets evened out.
    This is appreciated by people who mostly listen in their car, or doesnt want to turn the volume up or down when it changes (because their wife says so) - but IMO it destroys an important part of the music, and makes it tiresome.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    In the very early days of cd I think generally master mix tapes were just run flat...
    Far too many had noise reduction, too. When CDs came out, people became over-sensitive to hiss and many early mixes/masters had the top end chopped off. "All Things Must Pass" was one of the classic examples. It was horrendous, like many others of the time.
    "The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"

  22. #22
    http://sessionville.com/articles/mas...against-nature

    Mastering Steely Dan's Two Against Nature

    By Scott Hull

    "Steely Dan’s songs are mostly very sparse, carefully crafted sounds blended so that the individual elements aren’t immediately apparent. In this case the overall sound of the song needed to be a little brighter, as in more “present” compared to the other tracks on the record. But when EQ was added to make it brighter, one or more of the elements of the mix moved more than the other elements. In this way the EQ changes were more like mix level changes. We eventually came to a debate over whether we should add 0.2 db of EQ at 1,400 Hz or add 0.2 db of EQ at 1,250 Hz. The difference between these two settings would ordinarily be completely inaudible to most people, unless they had trained their perception.

    "For Donald however, who was deeply aware of how his record sounded, the difference was huge. At the first setting one of the shakers in the mix seemed to sound louder and dominated the mix in a way it hadn’t before. At the other setting the snare seemed louder, which was the intention, but it was too much. He asked me if we could split the difference, but at the time 0.2 db increments were the smallest change available and there wasn’t another option. If I recall correctly what was finally decided was to not add the EQ. The track would be a tad less present than there other tracks, but the balance between the instruments would be what he wanted."

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by A. Scherze View Post

    "For Donald however, who was deeply aware of how his record sounded, the difference was huge. At the first setting one of the shakers in the mix seemed to sound louder and dominated the mix in a way it hadn’t before. At the other setting the snare seemed louder, which was the intention, but it was too much. He asked me if we could split the difference, but at the time 0.2 db increments were the smallest change available and there wasn’t another option. If I recall correctly what was finally decided was to not add the EQ. The track would be a tad less present than there other tracks, but the balance between the instruments would be what he wanted."
    See honestly, I get the fact that they are that anal- I can be too- but once that mix gets into the real world the differences between even high end systems will render it pointless. Who even knows what happened to that mix once they got out of that particular room. They should have added a .02 boost at 1,325 and called it a day. Sheesh

  24. #24
    Member The Czar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Twin Peaks
    Posts
    789
    And unfortunately albums are not listened on one universal stereo system...or maybe I should say fortunately?
    But music sounds completely different from system to system.
    I mix on ok studio monitors (m-audio BX5a) and when I listen to a mix on a car or other radio, it can sound completely different.
    I decided to hook up some powered computer speakers so I can listen on both while mixing and switch back and forth for to help get a proper mix.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by The Czar View Post
    I mix on ok studio monitors (m-audio BX5a) and when I listen to a mix on a car or other radio, it can sound completely different.
    Back in the day, some studios had a low-powered AM transmitter and would feed a mix through it to hear how it sounded in a car in the parking lot.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •