Uk v USA sound

[koneguitarist]

After reading the posts about the Beatles sound etc I thought it would be worth a separate thread regarding the sound quality.
Bearing in mind the sound quality of the sun records in mid 50's, I think the UK sound even 10 years later in mid 60's sounds thin and with a harsh mid quality to it. Part of this is down to studio engineers of the time but also about getting the best out of what you have. I think the bass amps available in states may have helped as well.
What's your take on it all?

[ICBM]

I agree. The sound coming out of the US studios seemed far better to me, certainly up to about the late 60s (Sgt. Pepper is probably the first Beatles album I really like the sounds on, as well as the songs on.) Surprising given the technology was quite simple and should have been possible to duplicate easily in the UK.

I've never been a fan of "British Invasion" guitar sounds in particular - they sound boxy, honky and harsh, pretty much everything I hate about guitar sounds. (Only beaten by the sort of high-gain boxy, honky and harsh sounds used from the late 80s onwards.) They really don't reflect the guitars used, which although mostly semi-acoustic, shouldn't sound as hollow and ratty as they do. I detested Gretsch and Rickenbacker guitars for years until I discovered they don't actually sound like that. (Ricks are some of my favourites now, but it took the likes of Tom Petty, Susanna Hoffs and Peter Buck to make me realise that.)

The Americans did have the great advantage of Ampeg Portaflex bass amps too, which were used in almost every studio.

[Dulcetjones]

There are people who feel that the voltage difference between UK and North America has something to do with how the amps perform, guitar amps in particular. Our electricity grid runs at 110VAC and the thinking is that your higher voltage couple with amps built for that higher voltage produce a different sound. One observation I can make is the recorded sound of acoustic guitars recorded in the UK is far more present and brilliant sounding than most of the North American recordings of similar guitars. If you go back to the 70's music and compare artists like Jethro Tull, Supertramp, Zeppelin, and even the odd Black Sabbath song the acoustic guitars are amazing. Put these along side artists like The Eagles, Kansas and even some of the folkies of the day and they just don't have the same zing IMO.

[richardhomer]

I suspect there are two distinct 'schools'. The British 'Men in White Coats'/BBC type approach to capturing sound accurately vs the American 'Make it sound good' method. To my ears, there seems to be a lot more compression on American recordings. They sound quite 'produced'. Also, some guitar sounds on British records (eg: a Rickenbacker through a Top Boost AC30) would take your head off if you're not careful. American (ie Fender) amps tend to sound 'softer'.

[ICBM]

Also, some guitar sounds on British records (eg: a Rickenbacker through a Top Boost AC30) would take your head off if you're not careful. American (ie Fender) amps tend to sound 'softer'.

Ah, but Peter Buck's signature sound is also a Rickenbacker through an AC30. It sounds very little like John Lennon or George Harrison at all. (Much better, in fact!)

[monquixote]

I believe the Beatles slightly weedy recorded sound was partially due to restrictions on the amount of bass that recordings were allowed to contain due to the fear that the resulting disks would have compromised durability.

It also probably comes from proper line up. The Motown and Rolling Stones stuff got some of the sound by pushing everything into the red driving the desk and saturating the tape.

[richardhomer]

Ah, but Peter Buck's signature sound is also a Rickenbacker through an AC30. It sounds very little like John Lennon or George Harrison at all. (Much better, in fact!)

Agreed. I think compression is a big part of it. Mike Campbell gets great sounds out of Rickies too, sometimes with Vox amps, but again, I hear a lot of compression. Maybe Lennon, Harrison et al were simply not cranking their amps up to a level where they started to 'sag' a little? Peter Buck's recordings are obviously a lot more recent than the Beatles's - the art had developed quite bit by then. A lot of sixties recordings seem to have a 'papery' colouration - if you will forgive the Hi Fi Answers-ism!

[koneguitarist]

I think the amount of compression used on USA stuff is huge, far more than the uk stuff of the time. Really fat sounding lower mids instead of harsh upper mids. Also acoustics were recorded differently to UK as well, often American artists were using the old DeArmond sound hole pick even in mid 50's.
to me the uk didn't get big fat recordings until end of 60's early '70's.
But the Sun recordings for tone was hard to beat, and set the benchmark.