2 minutes ago, STC said:

Meanwhile, he also said commented about analogue and miking techniques in other interview which may not go well with audiophiles.

Well, he learned from George Martin, who felt that artists and producers should have the freedom to create a sonic environment in the recording rather than striving only to reflect accurately what would essentially be a live studio performance.  The latter is something I've read many audiophiles urging, and Martin really had no time for that.  (Heck, a quick listen to Beatles recordings and Dark Side of the Moon, which Parsons worked on, will make it more than obvious the goal was never a straight reflection of a few guys playing in a studio.)

Perhaps, if we should call them audio hobbyists because audiophile refers to a specific purpose in the sound reproduction.

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

Well, he learned from George Martin, who felt that artists and producers should have the freedom to create a sonic environment in the recording

Sir Martin?  I still remember the quote " why would they want to do that?" when stereo was introduced during the Beatles recording session the very first time.

Both the tracks you were referring to involved some audio processing. They all were different from the purist approach of typical recording which made the big difference in the sound. 

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

... All of this through a terrible A to D converter on the video camera and lossy YouTube compression and you’ve nailed it. Some golden ears 😁

We had this argument a while ago, sparked by a reviewer for an audiophile publication doing equipment reviews using a dummy head to record peoples' systems in their room.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/54420-earspace/

"And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence"

With Thanks to Paul Simon.

And finally, what I think is a very interesting version for these times:

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

We had this argument a while ago, sparked by a reviewer for an audiophile publication doing equipment reviews using a dummy head to record peoples' systems in their room.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/54420-earspace/

As an example of how that "terrible A to D converter on the video camera and lossy YouTube compression" can actually demonstrate that a rig is doing the job of delivering the music, with no excuses - in the same series of "World's Greatest Audio Systems",

1 hour ago, firedog said:

 I'm willing to bet that's another not accurate quote. The Beatles first album was done in both stereo and mono (excluding the previously released material  that wasn't  recorded in stereo). 
 

At their very first recording sessions for Love Me Do, etc. Martin was just fulfilling a contractual obligation to record 4 songs. There was an assumption in house that once the songs had been recorded (not even released), that would be the  end of it. Martin signed the Beatles to the contract mostly because the music publishing arm of EMI liked a couple of their songs and wanted the rights. He may very well not have signed them at all if it wasn't for that. Of course things changed once the songs were recorded and actually released. 

Sir George certainly didn't believe in the "absolute sound"; he saw the studio and technology as another "instrument" which he could use to get the result he wanted. This predates his time with the Beatles and can be seen in the various music and comedy recordings he did with Parlaphone before the Beatles ever arrived at Abbey Road. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me:

 

 

As far as know Beatles preferred Mono and made their recordings in mono. It was the under the US agents pressure Martin released his mixed mono as stereo. OTOH, they probably sounded different with big soundstage because they were mixed for speaker that were separated by 2 or 3 feet. In order to have a big soundstage the mono tracks were hard panned to the extreme so that you get a typical 60 degrees speakers.

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

As an example of how that "terrible A to D converter on the video camera and lossy YouTube compression" can actually demonstrate that a rig is doing the job of delivering the music, with no excuses - in the same series of "World's Greatest Audio Systems",

 

 

 

 

 

Oh please. How can you even be sure there wasn't any correction done in the recording?  I did post in their forum my videos and their multi million system compared side by side.  My posts will be moderated by removing their videos which I attached for side by side comparisons.

47 minutes ago, firedog said:

Not accurate. They preferred mono, yes, because it was the dominant format for their fans equipment in the UK till about 67-68 or so. Doesn't mean they didn't mix for stereo or only record in mono. As noted above, their first album was also mixed to stereo at the time it was recorded and it was intended only for the UK market at that time.  Their other albums were also all mixed to stereo. 

Basically, with a few songs as exceptions, their entire catalog was done in both mono and stereo, except for Let it

Be and Abbey Road, which were done only in stereo, as by 1969 it was clear that the market had changed so that mono wasn't really necessary. 

I can't recall everything about Beatles now as I was gathering information on stereo development at the time. Anyway, here is something which may help to throw some light on this discussion which has now gone out of topic.

"

Martin: Four-track was the earliest thing we had and that wasn’t until 1965. From ’62 to ’65 we didn’t have four-track. We had mono--mono was the thing. Mono was all that pop records were. Stereo was reserved for classical. Stereo wasn’t considered to be in any way useful to pop record because it dissipated the sound...

MF: ...on the radio...

Martin: ...and pop had to hit you square on the nose. And so it was considered irrelevant. Very few people had stereo machines anyway. And if they did, they generally had them in cabinets where the speakers were about a foot apart, so you couldn’t really tell.

So mono was the thing. But I took a stereo machine and separated the tracks and made it into a twin-track machine. So when we recorded the Beatles live as we did, we didn’t overdub. I would keep the voices on one track and put the backing on another, so when they went home I could then mix it down and keep the voice forward--but at the same time get plenty of impact. I wouldn’t have to do it on the spot. So that gave me time.

MF: And there was some leakage between the two tracks because they were playing live...?

Martin: Of course.

MF: But it was amazing separation!

Martin: Yes, but then, in the instrumental where the voices stop, all the shit comes out on that track from elsewhere. When I first heard what they’d been doing, I was horrified. But they just did. And I didn’t find out 'till afterwards, and it was too late.

But the worst thing is: The people got used to this and loved it! They liked to be able to turn up the voices in songs. So I was hoisted with my own petard here. I couldn’t protest anymore. I was saying, “Why do you do this? It’s a travesty!” But then they’d say, “The people like it!”

MF: But that came out in England also—the stereo With the Beatles.

Martin: It did. By this time I’d left EMI, and I had no power there at all. I left EMI in 1965 to start my own company. Up to ’65 I was the head of Parlophone Records, so what I said went--as far as Parlophone was concerned. But once I left, I had no authority...apart from complaining.

MF: Back to those Capitol tracks: They were in mono, I assume.

Martin: Yes, "Baby, You’re a Rich Man," "Penny Lane," and "All You Need is Love" should have been mono.

Read more at https://www.analogplanet.com/content/sir-george-martin-interview-part-two-0#ZEV6pzrSh7tOpvJG.99 "

And 

Beyond this, working in true stereo the way the Beatles wanted to simply wasn’t possible through most of the 1960s. By the time of A Hard Day’s Night in 1964, for example, EMI had taken delivery of several new four-track machines, but that remained the state of the art for the next several years. And four tracks is far short of the number necessary to create what we might think of as a “modern” recording - with stereo drums, stereo instruments and stereo voices. Since early stereo attempts tended to sound clumsy and primitive, the Beatles gave up on the format until better times arrived. It wasn’t until 1968, when they began using eight-track machines, that they began giving real attention to stereo.

In the Beatles’ minds, we should remember, it was always more important for a record to be musically good than for it to be compatible with some new, gimmicky format. The Beatles had been raised on mono. All their early records were mono. The radio they listened to was mono. And so it’s natural that, as they began recording, mono remained their chief form of public expression. From 1962 until 1968 the Beatles would record their songs, create mono masters with George Martin plus either Norman Smith (1962-65) or Geoff Emerick (1966-67), and then go off on tour or holiday, leaving the stereo mixes to be done solely under Martin’s supervision. Stereo tapes were often couriered to Capitol in New York without the Beatles ever hearing them at all.

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

As an example of how that "terrible A to D converter on the video camera and lossy YouTube compression" can actually demonstrate that a rig is doing the job of delivering the music, with no excuses - in the same series of "World's Greatest Audio Systems",

 

 

 

Just an example of how different we all are - that is horribly ugly to me. 

No room for people!

To me the very best audiophile systems manage to disappear into the room, and all that is left is the music. Dang bling is just - bling. I have friends that would probably try to choke me for saying that though. They have absolutely gorgeous equipment, and enjoy showing off a bit. The most I really wanna see is my iPad, with Roon up on it.

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

To me the very best audiophile systems manage to disappear into the room, and all that is left is the music

Another phrase that never made any sense to me. Can we also say in live performance when the sound is so good the performers disappear from the stage?  

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

To me the very best audiophile systems manage to disappear into the room, and all that is left is the music. Dang bling is just - bling. I have friends that would probably try to choke me for saying that though. They have absolutely gorgeous equipment, and enjoy showing off a bit. The most I really wanna see is my iPad, with Roon up on it.

 

I agree ... there are myriads of ways for setting up a competent system - but the core, for me, is getting the sound to work. The equipment as visual adornment for the room is an afterthought - shine moving spotlights on each piece in turn if you like; or, hide it all behind a drab curtain - whatever turns you on, .

I'm a fan of the sleeper idea - in cars, a boring, anonymous vehicle explodes from the pack, and outruns all the fancy fellas ...

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Another phrase that never made any sense to me. Can we also say in live performance when the sound is so good the performers disappear from the stage?  

Makes full sense to me. An expression I came across was that the sound "loads the room" - I recall a largish auditorium where a female opera singer let rip, and her voice completely took over the auditory world of that room; it was, "everywhere" - an amazing sensation.

This is what convincing stereo playback does - it completely dominates the space you're in, in an acoustic sense.

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

Oh please. How can you even be sure there wasn't any correction done in the recording?  I did post in their forum my videos and their multi million system compared side by side.  My posts will be moderated by removing their videos which I attached for side by side comparisons.

So, we're in the world where everything that contradicts our viewpoint must have been fiddled with, eh ...

I've heard enough rigs, rare that this be, that get the sound right to know that there a few out there that are firing on all cylinders - trouble is, this is still regarded as some strange anomaly.

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

I can't recall everything about Beatles now as I was gathering information on stereo development at the time. Anyway, here is something which may help to throw some light on this discussion which has now gone out of topic.

 

"

Martin: Four-track was the earliest thing we had and that wasn’t until 1965. From ’62 to ’65 we didn’t have four-track. We had mono--mono was the thing. Mono was all that pop records were. Stereo was reserved for classical. Stereo wasn’t considered to be in any way useful to pop record because it dissipated the sound...

MF: ...on the radio...

Martin: ...and pop had to hit you square on the nose. And so it was considered irrelevant. Very few people had stereo machines anyway. And if they did, they generally had them in cabinets where the speakers were about a foot apart, so you couldn’t really tell.

So mono was the thing. But I took a stereo machine and separated the tracks and made it into a twin-track machine. So when we recorded the Beatles live as we did, we didn’t overdub. I would keep the voices on one track and put the backing on another, so when they went home I could then mix it down and keep the voice forward--but at the same time get plenty of impact. I wouldn’t have to do it on the spot. So that gave me time.

MF: And there was some leakage between the two tracks because they were playing live...?

Martin: Of course.

MF: But it was amazing separation!

Martin: Yes, but then, in the instrumental where the voices stop, all the shit comes out on that track from elsewhere. When I first heard what they’d been doing, I was horrified. But they just did. And I didn’t find out 'till afterwards, and it was too late.

But the worst thing is: The people got used to this and loved it! They liked to be able to turn up the voices in songs. So I was hoisted with my own petard here. I couldn’t protest anymore. I was saying, “Why do you do this? It’s a travesty!” But then they’d say, “The people like it!”

MF: But that came out in England also—the stereo With the Beatles.

Martin: It did. By this time I’d left EMI, and I had no power there at all. I left EMI in 1965 to start my own company. Up to ’65 I was the head of Parlophone Records, so what I said went--as far as Parlophone was concerned. But once I left, I had no authority...apart from complaining.

MF: Back to those Capitol tracks: They were in mono, I assume.

Martin: Yes, "Baby, You’re a Rich Man," "Penny Lane," and "All You Need is Love" should have been mono.

Read more at https://www.analogplanet.com/content/sir-george-martin-interview-part-two-0#ZEV6pzrSh7tOpvJG.99 "

 

 

And 

 

Beyond this, working in true stereo the way the Beatles wanted to simply wasn’t possible through most of the 1960s. By the time of A Hard Day’s Night in 1964, for example, EMI had taken delivery of several new four-track machines, but that remained the state of the art for the next several years. And four tracks is far short of the number necessary to create what we might think of as a “modern” recording - with stereo drums, stereo instruments and stereo voices. Since early stereo attempts tended to sound clumsy and primitive, the Beatles gave up on the format until better times arrived. It wasn’t until 1968, when they began using eight-track machines, that they began giving real attention to stereo.

In the Beatles’ minds, we should remember, it was always more important for a record to be musically good than for it to be compatible with some new, gimmicky format. The Beatles had been raised on mono. All their early records were mono. The radio they listened to was mono. And so it’s natural that, as they began recording, mono remained their chief form of public expression. From 1962 until 1968 the Beatles would record their songs, create mono masters with George Martin plus either Norman Smith (1962-65) or Geoff Emerick (1966-67), and then go off on tour or holiday, leaving the stereo mixes to be done solely under Martin’s supervision. Stereo tapes were often couriered to Capitol in New York without the Beatles ever hearing them at all.

George is talking about Capitol in the US releasing "hard panned" stereo versions, which were not under his or the band's control. Not even the lineup of songs was under their control - those were different in the US and UK, as we know.

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

George is talking about Capitol in the US releasing "hard panned" stereo versions, which were not under his or the band's control. Not even the lineup of songs was under their control - those were different in the US and UK, as we know.

It was in the interview. He made them for US Capitol.