[PStamler]

Hi folks:

According to "Recording the Beatles", it was standard practice at Abbey Road to filter the signal going to the reverb chamber, chopping off the low and high frequencies so that the reverb send was all midrange. The university's closed for break, so I can't get to the library to check. If anyone here has access to the book, or knows the frequencies, could you please tell me what they were? Thanks!

Peace,
Paul

[david gourley[_2_]]

PStamler said...news:bbc11b05-a73e-445c-a062-
:

Hi folks:

According to "Recording the Beatles", it was standard practice at Abbey
Road to filter the signal going to the reverb chamber, chopping off the low
and high frequencies so that the reverb send was all midrange. The
university's closed for break, so I can't get to the library to check. If
anyone here has access to the book, or knows the frequencies, could you
please tell me what they were? Thanks!

Peace,
Paul


With the RS106 'Echo Control Unit,' they cut bass at 600Hz and the top end
at 10kHz. Echo Chamber #2 had an extra unit that boosted 3.5kHz around
6dB.

HTH,
david

[[email protected]]

david gourley wrote: "... at 10kHz. Echo Chamber #2 had an extra unit that boosted 3.5kHz ..."

SHHHH! Be careful how often you bring up that
frequency, LOL

[david gourley[_2_]]

said...news:33521675-d086-4b09-be14-9cf64c21dfc7
@googlegroups.com:

david gourley wrote: "... at 10kHz. Echo Chamber #2 had an extra unit
that boosted 3.5kHz ..."

SHHHH! Be careful how often you bring up that
frequency, LOL




I was only trying to give him the information he asked for, but I know
perspective isn't your strong suit.

You should read that book. You might learn a lot. Or not.

david

[Scott Dorsey]

david gourley wrote:
PStamler said...news:bbc11b05-a73e-445c-a062-
:

Hi folks:
According to "Recording the Beatles", it was standard practice at Abbey
Road to filter the signal going to the reverb chamber, chopping off the low
and high frequencies so that the reverb send was all midrange. The
university's closed for break, so I can't get to the library to check. If
anyone here has access to the book, or knows the frequencies, could you
please tell me what they were? Thanks!


With the RS106 'Echo Control Unit,' they cut bass at 600Hz and the top end
at 10kHz. Echo Chamber #2 had an extra unit that boosted 3.5kHz around
6dB.

It doesn't say so, but likely those cut filters were not as sharp as what
we'd consider a cut filter today. Maybe only first or second order.

The presence boost may be to make it more forward but it may also be to
compensate for the chamber response itself.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[david gourley[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) :

david gourley wrote:
PStamler said...news:bbc11b05-a73e-445c-a062-
:

Hi folks:
According to "Recording the Beatles", it was standard practice at Abbey
Road to filter the signal going to the reverb chamber, chopping off the
low
and high frequencies so that the reverb send was all midrange. The
university's closed for break, so I can't get to the library to check. If
anyone here has access to the book, or knows the frequencies, could you
please tell me what they were? Thanks!


With the RS106 'Echo Control Unit,' they cut bass at 600Hz and the top
end
at 10kHz. Echo Chamber #2 had an extra unit that boosted 3.5kHz around
6dB.

It doesn't say so, but likely those cut filters were not as sharp as what
we'd consider a cut filter today. Maybe only first or second order.

The presence boost may be to make it more forward but it may also be to
compensate for the chamber response itself.
--scott


Yes, I was thinking the presence boost was compensating for the chamber
response as much as anything.

david

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 12:52:58 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
Hi folks:

According to "Recording the Beatles", it was standard practice at Abbey Road to filter the signal going to the reverb chamber, chopping off the low and high frequencies so that the reverb send was all midrange. The university's closed for break, so I can't get to the library to check. If anyone here has access to the book, or knows the frequencies, could you please tell me what they were? Thanks!

Peace,
Paul

Can you imagine Bill Porter filling in for George Martin, recording The Beatles.

Bill: Okay, boys, let's try Take #1!
John & Paul: But, Mr. Porter, Mr. Martin allowed us to piece together our recordings!
Bill: rolls eyes

Jack

[None]

tekma gmail.com wrote in message
...
david gourley wrote: "... at 10kHz. Echo Chamber #2 had an extra
unit that boosted 3.5kHz ..."

SHHHH! Be careful how often you bring up that frequency, LOL

Dumb **** needs attention, so he pinches of a very lame attempt at
trolling.

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:45:54 AM UTC-4, wrote:
david gourley wrote: "... at 10kHz. Echo Chamber #2 had an extra unit that boosted 3.5kHz ..."

SHHHH! Be careful how often you bring up that
frequency, LOL

They eventually learn.

SLOW Men At Work.

Listening, Geoff?

Jack

[[email protected]]

david gourley wrote: "
I was only trying to give him the information he asked for, but I know
perspective isn't your strong suit.

You should read that book. You might learn a lot. Or not.

david "


It was a JOKE. We have a participant here who posts
links to numerous remixes and "remasters" in which he
heaps and gobs on EQ right in the middle of the average
person's hearing intelligibility range(2-4kHz). He has
already been called out on this by others.

[None]

thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
It was a JOKE.

It was a troll, li'l buddy.

[[email protected]]

...... wrote: " thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
It was a JOKE.

It was a troll, li'l buddy. "

Butt out. You add ZERO to
rec.audio.pro.

[None]

thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
It was a JOKE.
It was a troll, li'l buddy. "

Butt out. You add ZERO to rec.audio.pro.

I don't think you can actually count to zero, li'l buddy. And in case
you forgot, again, you're not the moderator. Moderators are the people
who ban retards trolls like you from moderator forums. Which this
isn't.