What are Micro Dynamics in music? Beatles Tony Sheridan Polydor era vs. Parlophone..

The CD with the blue background (with Ringo) was withdrawn when it was pointed out that people may have thought they were being misled as to the contents.

 

And the nail is struck firmly on the head.

 

Is this the same album and the same mastering?

 

Now I know why I didn't care for The Beatles for so long and I still don't care for most of the stuff before Rubber Soul/Revolver.. the Stones oth sounded fab to me from the first moment I heard them and I adore their first albums !
EMI' Higher ranking engineers sabotaged their sound !

 

So you're basically saying the later recordings were over-compressed? To me, that's just the style of the period -- I buy it as "the way it was," rather than being concerned about what it could've been. It's just another creative choice the producer and engineers made.

I agree that you can get a much cleaner recording with less processing and a very simple signal path. But I'd also wonder whether the more-processed song might not jump out better from a 3" transistor radio in 1962. I'm too used to the clutter and punch the songs have to worry about whether there could've been more dynamic range if they had kept things simpler.

 

1968 was after the squash period?!

 

Not familiar with the Shadows, but just thinking of the Beatles stuff from that era (Let It Be excepted) that's still compressed to all hell, although perhaps in different ways. Drums don't sound like *that*.

 

Sure, but I'm not the guy that revived it. I assume all the comments are just as relevant today, since we're talking about 50-year-old music.

I think the bottom line is that different engineers and producers reached for different tools when they felt like it. Sometimes "cleaner" is not the sound they wanted.

Maybe a better question to ask is: can you still have "microdynamics" and have a hit that would have jumped out of an AM radio speaker in 1962?

 

How about the drums on A Beautiful Morning and A Ray of Hope? What do you have to do to make things sound THAT BAD?

What's odd is 1) the drums on a lot of other Rascals songs sound good (more or less) and 2) at least in the case of A Ray of Hope, the vocals sound just fine. Did somebody push the "poop" button on the backing but not the vocals?

 

I mean...some songs sound (more or less) fine. Yet *parts* of others sound like poop.

I have to wonder how much of that stuff Tom Dowd engineered and how much other staff engineers (Adrian Barber, etc) did.

Wow. I never knew Adrian Barber also recorded the Beatles' Star Club recordings.

 

An *internal* bounce off the sync head would explain that.

 

Fact too, the Shadows recorded in Studio One, got the best EMI Early Stereo before the tinkering happened. Studio Two was much more pop sessions and usually more conservative on engineering in the early days on Parlophone. Some Parlophone LP discs were engineered better, say "At The Drop Of Another Hat" by Flanders and Swann in Stereo in 1963 or so. Which wasn't tinkered with.

 

I'm not sure, but I may have had something to do with it:

http://stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=261024&highlight=beatles+mono

 

Ok, resurrecting an old thread, but I'm listening to the Pickwick version of this LP, titled "The Beatles Featuring Tony Sheridan" http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000UPXF8O...e=asn&creative=395109&creativeASIN=B000UPXF8O and although it says Electronically Created STEREO, it sounds to me like it is real stereo, clear separation on all the songs. Am I just imagining this, or can someone confirm that these are the true stereo versions? By the way, this LP sounds amazing!

 

I wonder if Pete not being allowed to use hus bassdrum freed up some "air" that helped the dynamics.

 

This might be an old thread, but that's the best damn explanation of transients I've ever heard. Makes it easy to understand why their reproduction depends on so many things, like recording gear, recording and playback media, playback setup to name just a few. Thanks.

 

True stereo. The note on the cover is wrong.

As you say, that's a nice sounding LP.