[PStamler]

Hi folks:

So...anybody here heard the Beatles reissues that hit the racks last
Wednesday? A Starbuck's near my house has Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul
for $12.95 each.

Anybody know what was done to them in the course of remastering? Or
how toxic it might have been?

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

EMI supposedly went back to the original master tapes and created
transfers -- in both mono and stereo -- that were as close as possible to
the originals. They presumably used the original LPs (or perhaps the cutting
tapes) as a reference. Whether Paul McCartney had any input, I don't know.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
PStamler wrote:

Hi folks:

So...anybody here heard the Beatles reissues that hit the racks last
Wednesday? A Starbuck's near my house has Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul
for $12.95 each.

Anybody know what was done to them in the course of remastering? Or
how toxic it might have been?

Peace,
Paul

I haven't yet read about what was dome or how, but the four that I've
purchased sound really terrific.

[nebulax]

On Sep 15, 5:11*pm, PStamler wrote:
Hi folks:

So...anybody here heard the Beatles reissues that hit the racks last
Wednesday? A Starbuck's near my house has Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul
for $12.95 each.

Anybody know what was done to them in the course of remastering? Or
how toxic it might have been?

Peace,
Paul


I don't know what was done to them either, but thus far these versions
just sound more 'natural' to me than the previous CD issues. So, maybe
they didn't do much to them, after all.

-Neb

[Mark]

On Sep 16, 1:26*am, nebulax wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:11*pm, PStamler wrote:

Hi folks:

So...anybody here heard the Beatles reissues that hit the racks last
Wednesday? A Starbuck's near my house has Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul
for $12.95 each.

Anybody know what was done to them in the course of remastering? Or
how toxic it might have been?

Peace,
Paul

I don't know what was done to them either, but thus far these versions
just sound more 'natural' to me than the previous CD issues. So, maybe
they didn't do much to them, after all.

-Neb

So if I already own the vinyl, then I already have a license to have a
copy of the music, I should NOT have to pay for another copy..

Mark

[William Sommerwerck]

So if I already own the vinyl, then I already have a license to have
a copy of the music, I should NOT have to pay for another copy...

An interesting and logical point. When software producers claim that the
purchase buys a license to use the software, rather than acquisition of the
physical medium, they (arguably) put themselves in the position of being
obliged to provide new physical manifestations of the software to existing
owners, at a minimal price (manufacturing cost, say).

On a related note... The current issue of "Home Theater" has a review of the
Sooloos server in which the reviewer suggests that its owners copy their CDs
to the server, then sell them. The editor makes a parenthetical remark that
the magazine has no opinion, pro or con, about such a practice.

In practical terms, this is theft. Regardless of whether one has purchased
the use of the contents, or the physical medium itself, you can sell either,
while continuing to use it.

[William Sommerwerck]

In practical terms, this is theft. Regardless of whether one has purchased
the use of the contents, or the physical medium itself, you can sell
either,
while continuing to use it.

Senior moment. It should have read...

In practical terms, this is theft. Regardless of whether one has purchased
the use of the contents, or the physical medium itself, you can't sell
either,
while continuing to use it.

[Mike Rivers]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
When software producers claim that the
purchase buys a license to use the software, rather than acquisition of the
physical medium, they (arguably) put themselves in the position of being
obliged to provide new physical manifestations of the software to existing
owners, at a minimal price (manufacturing cost, say).

That's probably true, but they don't have a responsibilty to provide you
with
an improved version. If you lose your ProTools 3 disk and ask for another,
they might send you one if they can find it, or charge you $50 to make one
(a set of floppys maybe????) from the vaults. But they won't send you Pro
Tools 8 for five bucks. And I've never heard of a record company offering to
give you a new copy of an LP when yours is scratched or got warped when
you left it in the car on a hot day.

The theme here seems to be that this is an "improved" version of a previous
Beatles release so it probably doesn't qualify as a replacement.

[Mr Soul]

So if I already own the vinyl, then I already have a license to have a
copy of the music, I should NOT have to pay for another copy..
Sure you have to pay because it's not a copy, it's a new media source.

Mike

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

When software producers claim that the
purchase buys a license to use the software, rather than acquisition of
the
physical medium, they (arguably) put themselves in the position of being
obliged to provide new physical manifestations of the software to
existing
owners, at a minimal price (manufacturing cost, say).

That's probably true, but they don't have a responsibilty to provide you
with an improved version.

That wasn't my point. I'm talking about "identical" products -- in this case
(say) "Revolver".


The theme here seems to be that this is an "improved" version of a
previous Beatles release so it probably doesn't qualify as a replacement.

If it's not a "replacement", then why are people buying it?

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
When software producers claim that the
purchase buys a license to use the software, rather than acquisition of the
physical medium, they (arguably) put themselves in the position of being
obliged to provide new physical manifestations of the software to existing
owners, at a minimal price (manufacturing cost, say).

That's probably true, but they don't have a responsibilty to provide you
with
an improved version. If you lose your ProTools 3 disk and ask for another,
they might send you one if they can find it, or charge you $50 to make one
(a set of floppys maybe????) from the vaults. But they won't send you Pro
Tools 8 for five bucks. And I've never heard of a record company offering to
give you a new copy of an LP when yours is scratched or got warped when
you left it in the car on a hot day.

The theme here seems to be that this is an "improved" version of a previous
Beatles release so it probably doesn't qualify as a replacement.

And that, in short, is WHY the record and software companies keep coming
out with newer rehashes of older material.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[nebulax]

On Sep 16, 8:18*am, Mark wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:26*am, nebulax wrote:



On Sep 15, 5:11*pm, PStamler wrote:

Hi folks:

So...anybody here heard the Beatles reissues that hit the racks last
Wednesday? A Starbuck's near my house has Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul
for $12.95 each.

Anybody know what was done to them in the course of remastering? Or
how toxic it might have been?

Peace,
Paul

I don't know what was done to them either, but thus far these versions
just sound more 'natural' to me than the previous CD issues. So, maybe
they didn't do much to them, after all.

-Neb

So if I already own the vinyl, then I already have a license to have a
copy of the music, I should NOT have to pay for another copy..

Mark



That's one way to look at it, but the remastered CD's sound yet
different than the various vinyl issues, as well. Is it worth buying
another copy of an album you've already bought before? I guess
everyone has to answer that for themselves, but if you'd like to hear
the new versions without having to make a repeat purchase, they're all
torrenting over on Pirate Bay.

-Neb

[Richard Crowley]

"Mark" wrote ...
So if I already own the vinyl, then I already have a license to have a
copy of the music, I should NOT have to pay for another copy..

Technically yes. However....

The cost of the track license was only a miniscule part of the cost of
the original LP. Very much more of the price was the overhead in
distributing it. Likely somewhere near 50% went just to the retailer
to cover their costs of doing business and some profit.

The re-issue is NOT the same recording, so your original "license"
does not apply anyway.

[Scott Dorsey]

nebulax wrote:

That's one way to look at it, but the remastered CD's sound yet
different than the various vinyl issues, as well. Is it worth buying
another copy of an album you've already bought before? I guess
everyone has to answer that for themselves, but if you'd like to hear
the new versions without having to make a repeat purchase, they're all
torrenting over on Pirate Bay.

Well... I have the American LP of With the Beatles, but it has no top or
bottom end because the folks at Columbia filtered the hell out of it.
Then I have the CD reissue which sounds a little wierd because the two
channels are a little out of phase; they played back a full-track mono
tape on a half-track stereo machine, didn't have the azimuth quite right,
and didn't sum the two channels to mono.

So after these first two goofs, I am worried about buying a THIRD issue
that might also be screwed up.

I should just have bought the Parlophone LP in the first place.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

That wasn't my point. I'm talking about "identical" products -- in this case
(say) "Revolver".

But according to those here who have one of the new issues, it's not
identical
to the one they already have.

If it's not a "replacement", then why are people buying it?

There are some people who will buy anything that The Beatles put out. And if
they like the sound on this new one better than what they had before,
they're
ahead in the game. It's like replacing my 2003 Lexus with a 2010 Lexus.
It's
the closest Mr. Lexus can come to a replacement, but it's not the same,
and I
suspect that I would like it better. And I'd like it even better if they
replaced mine
just for the cost of shipping, but I doubt they're going to do that.

So, I guess I don't get your point.

[nebulax]

On Sep 16, 2:21*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
nebulax wrote:

That's one way to look at it, but the remastered CD's sound yet
different than the various vinyl issues, as well. Is it worth buying
another copy of an album you've already bought before? I guess
everyone has to answer that for themselves, but if you'd like to hear
the new versions without having to make a repeat purchase, they're all
torrenting over on Pirate Bay.

Well... I have the American LP of With the Beatles, but it has no top or
bottom end because the folks at Columbia filtered the hell out of it. *
Then I have the CD reissue which sounds a little wierd because the two
channels are a little out of phase; they played back a full-track mono
tape on a half-track stereo machine, didn't have the azimuth quite right,
and didn't sum the two channels to mono.

So after these first two goofs, I am worried about buying a THIRD issue
that might also be screwed up.

I should just have bought the Parlophone LP in the first place.
--scott


I read somewhere that besides messing around with the original track
selection of the early Beatles albums, Capitol supposedly added extra
reverb and compression to the US pressings of those lp's. The new cd's
sound drier and less compressed to me, so they should be closer to
what the master tapes actually sound like.

-Neb

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

When software producers claim that the
purchase buys a license to use the software, rather than
acquisition of the physical medium, they (arguably) put themselves
in the position of being obliged to provide new physical
manifestations of the software to existing owners, at a minimal
price (manufacturing cost, say).

That's probably true, but they don't have a responsibilty to provide
you with an improved version.

That wasn't my point. I'm talking about "identical" products -- in
this case (say) "Revolver".

If it was 'identical', then you presumably woudn't want the new one then.

geoff

[Geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
The theme here seems to be that this is an "improved" version of a
previous Beatles release so it probably doesn't qualify as a
replacement.

And that, in short, is WHY the record and software companies keep
coming out with newer rehashes of older material.
--scott

And because there is a demand. In this case ignored for decades, to redo
with sota technology.

The consumer has the option to purchase the new poduct with it's added value
(either perceived, or actual as seems to be in this case), or not.

geoff

[Geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
nebulax wrote:

That's one way to look at it, but the remastered CD's sound yet
different than the various vinyl issues, as well. Is it worth buying
another copy of an album you've already bought before? I guess
everyone has to answer that for themselves, but if you'd like to hear
the new versions without having to make a repeat purchase, they're
all torrenting over on Pirate Bay.

Well... I have the American LP of With the Beatles, but it has no top
or bottom end because the folks at Columbia filtered the hell out of
it. Then I have the CD reissue which sounds a little wierd because
the two channels are a little out of phase; they played back a
full-track mono tape on a half-track stereo machine, didn't have the
azimuth quite right, and didn't sum the two channels to mono.

So after these first two goofs, I am worried about buying a THIRD
issue that might also be screwed up.

I should just have bought the Parlophone LP in the first place.
--scott

But then you would remain dynamics, presence, and
frequency-extremes-challenged.

geoff

[nebulax]

On Sep 16, 7:28*pm, "geoff" wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
nebulax wrote:

That's one way to look at it, but the remastered CD's sound yet
different than the various vinyl issues, as well. Is it worth buying
another copy of an album you've already bought before? I guess
everyone has to answer that for themselves, but if you'd like to hear
the new versions without having to make a repeat purchase, they're
all torrenting over on Pirate Bay.

Well... I have the American LP of With the Beatles, but it has no top
or bottom end because the folks at Columbia filtered the hell out of
it. Then I have the CD reissue which sounds a little wierd because
the two channels are a little out of phase; they played back a
full-track mono tape on a half-track stereo machine, didn't have the
azimuth quite right, and didn't sum the two channels to mono.

So after these first two goofs, I am worried about buying a THIRD
issue that might also be screwed up.

I should just have bought the Parlophone LP in the first place.
--scott

But then you would remain dynamics, presence, and
frequency-extremes-challenged.

geoff


Yeah, but still not as challenged as the US-made Capitol versions. The
overall best sounding Beatles vinyl pressings were always the Japanese
ones, and I wish I had bought more of them when they were readily
available. Some German pressings were worth having as well, like the
HorZu version of "Magical Mystery Tour", which seems to have been
sourced from a different master than any of the other international
issues.

-Neb

[Mike Rivers]

Marc Wielage wrote:

The 2009 reissues do not have this problem, and the EMI mastering engineers
went to extraordinary lengths to make sure they did use full-track mono heads
for the mono masters, and the EQ and azimuth were adjusted to the Nth degree.
They got them right this time.

This has been widely covered in hundreds of places all over the net.

Isn't it amazing that such a technical thing should be covered in
hundreds of places
all over the net? And all for the few dozen people who actually
understand what
the original problems and carelessness were. Millions enjoyed and loved
the orignal
vinyl and CD releases.

I'm not suggesting that it wasn't a good idea to do a better CD release,
just that they
needed to resort to what will probably appear to be technical
gobbledegook to most
readers just to sell the new reissue project.

[Mike Rivers]

geoff wrote:

And because there is a demand. In this case ignored for decades, to redo
with sota technology.

The consumer has the option to purchase the new poduct with it's added value
(either perceived, or actual as seems to be in this case), or not.

Probably more important are sales to the kids who weren't alive when the
original
record or early CD issue came out. This may their first exposure to a
real Beatles
recording . . . that they can rip to their iPod and enjoy in all its
original studio-like
fidelity.

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:21:37 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Then I have the CD reissue which sounds a little wierd because the two
channels are a little out of phase; they played back a full-track mono
tape on a half-track stereo machine, didn't have the azimuth quite right,
and didn't sum the two channels to mono.

You mean you have the _1987_ CD reissue.

Yes.

The 2009 reissues do not have this problem, and the EMI mastering engineers
went to extraordinary lengths to make sure they did use full-track mono heads
for the mono masters, and the EQ and azimuth were adjusted to the Nth degree.
They got them right this time.

Okay, that's a big argument in favor of the new CD issue.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tom Paul]

Should you get CD's free of the same master run if you bought it on
vinyl?? Guess not.

Tom

[Geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
geoff wrote:

And because there is a demand. In this case ignored for decades, to
redo with sota technology.

The consumer has the option to purchase the new poduct with it's
added value (either perceived, or actual as seems to be in this
case), or not.

Probably more important are sales to the kids who weren't alive when
the original
record or early CD issue came out. This may their first exposure to a
real Beatles
recording . . . that they can rip to their iPod and enjoy in all its
original studio-like
fidelity.

You are too cynical Mike. I've been hanging out for these for years,
epecially as a bassist really wanting to know how the baslines actually went
! The rest of the pluses are abonus too.


geoff

[Keith.[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
EMI supposedly went back to the original master tapes and created
transfers -- in both mono and stereo -- that were as close as possible to
the originals. They presumably used the original LPs (or perhaps the
cutting
tapes) as a reference. Whether Paul McCartney had any input, I don't know.

Rolling Stone recently said that McCartney was not really interested in
sound quality (wonder how the hearing is) but George was. I believe some
limiting was used on the new releases but no compression.

Keith.

[nebulax]

On Sep 16, 11:58*pm, "Keith." wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

...

EMI supposedly went back to the original master tapes and created
transfers -- in both mono and stereo -- that were as close as possible to
the originals. They presumably used the original LPs (or perhaps the
cutting
tapes) as a reference. Whether Paul McCartney had any input, I don't know.

Rolling Stone recently said that McCartney was not really interested in
sound quality (wonder how the hearing is) but George was. I believe some
limiting was used on the new releases but no compression.

Keith.


The interviews I read with the remastering engineers at Abbey Road
said that none of the Beatles or their estates were actually involved
in the mastering process for these cd's. The engineers sent copies of
the final production masters to all concerned parties, and when they
didn't hear any complaints coming back, they went ahead with the
pressings.

OTOH, back when the tracks for "Yellow Submarine" were being remixed
in 5.1, they did invite Paul, Ringo, and various other Beatle family
members over to Studio 2 to hear the results, and apparently there
were smiles all around.

-Neb

[Mr Soul]

Wouldn't the end result potentially have been "better" if they had
taken the original final tapes, instead of the masters, and convert
them to digital and then re-mix and re-master the results. Didn't
they do this on some of the other projects such as the Anthology.
Penny Lane sounded great on the Anthology and it was a re-mix. I know
this was done for the Let It Be Naked (which I didn't like as well as
the original).

Mike

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mr Soul" wrote in message
...

Wouldn't the end result potentially have been "better" if they had
taken the original final tapes, instead of the masters, and convert
them to digital and then re-mix and re-master the results.

Is that what you meant to say? The "original final tapes" are the cutting
masters with the final mixdown. You cannot "re-mix and re-master" them,
anymore than you can "re-mix" a can of beige paint.

If digital is better than analog, then copying the master tracks to digital
and performing the mix in the digital domain should result in better sound.

One might argue that the original cutting masters (assuming they still exist
and haven't deteriorated) are an exact representation of what JPGR wanted,
and a modern digital transfer of the "stems", though likely higher in
fidelity, would not be.

[Mr Soul]

Is that what you meant to say? The "original final tapes" are the cutting
masters with the final mixdown. You cannot "re-mix and re-master" them,
anymore than you can "re-mix" a can of beige paint.
"Original Final Tapes" means original final 4-track or 8-track tapes
from which the final mix was created from.

If digital is better than analog, then copying the master tracks to digital
and performing the mix in the digital domain should result in better sound.
Yes - this is what I meant.

Mike

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr Soul wrote:
Wouldn't the end result potentially have been "better" if they had
taken the original final tapes, instead of the masters, and convert
them to digital and then re-mix and re-master the results. Didn't
they do this on some of the other projects such as the Anthology.
Penny Lane sounded great on the Anthology and it was a re-mix. I know
this was done for the Let It Be Naked (which I didn't like as well as
the original).

On a lot of those recordings, the original final tapes _were_ the masters.
They were done to full track mono, or to two-track which was mixed down to
mono to create the cutting master.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mr Soul" wrote in message
...

Is that what you meant to say? The "original final tapes" are the
cutting
masters with the final mixdown. You cannot "re-mix and re-master" them,
anymore than you can "re-mix" a can of beige paint.

"Original Final Tapes" means original final 4-track or 8-track tapes
from which the final mix was created.

You mean original /session/ tapes. I've never heard anyone call the session
tapes "final" tapes. They're hardly the final step in the recording process.

[William Sommerwerck]

On a lot of those recordings, the original final tapes _were_
the masters. They were done to full track mono, or to two-track
which was mixed down to mono to create the cutting master.

I'm a bit confused. For that to work well, wouldn't they have had to get a
complete, perfect take?

(My question shows how much we've become accustomed to editing to convert
bits and pieces of multiple takes into a single "performance".)

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
On a lot of those recordings, the original final tapes _were_
the masters. They were done to full track mono, or to two-track
which was mixed down to mono to create the cutting master.

I'm a bit confused. For that to work well, wouldn't they have had to get a
complete, perfect take?

Yes. You can edit a couple takes together, BUT if you do that you have to
make sure the tempi match perfectly at the edit point. No window edits,
no punching. You have to actually have performers who can play.

(My question shows how much we've become accustomed to editing to convert
bits and pieces of multiple takes into a single "performance".)

It's scary, isn't it? Whatever happened to the concept of performance
integrity?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Mr Soul wrote:

"Original Final Tapes" means original final 4-track or 8-track tapes
from which the final mix was created from.

If you mean the edited multitrack tapes, yes that would be a good place
to start.
But I haven't read the book (have you?) and I don't know whether the
multitrack
tape or the mixed (mono or stereo) tape was edited (within the songs,
that is), or
both.

I think I know what you're asking, though - whether the best approach would
be to take the raw material and mix it again, to a digital master. Yes,
but of course
this would rely on the judgment and creativity of the one doing the
mixing. What
would he use as a reference? Would he try to make it sound as close as
possible
to the original record? If he could find the last generation mix before
the production
master (that is before compression, limiting, and equalization were
applied to
optimize the cutting of the lacquer master), should he use that as a
reference?
Or should he do what the original mixer did, which is just make it sound
like he
thought it should sound, perhaps with some guidance from the band and the
producer?

[Mike Rivers]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
On a lot of those recordings, the original final tapes _were_
the masters. They were done to full track mono, or to two-track

I'm a bit confused. For that to work well, wouldn't they have had to get a
complete, perfect take?

Not necessarily. They could edit together multiple takes and still call
the
edited version a "master" since all the pieces were first generation.
But then
what's wrong with getting a complete, perfect take? If that was the
requirement
maybe we'd have less crappy music.

(My question shows how much we've become accustomed to editing to convert
bits and pieces of multiple takes into a single "performance".)

I figured that you knew better. g I want clients like the ones Al
Schmidt gets. Most
of the interviews you read with him describing how something was
recorded, although
today it's almost always recorded multitrack, much of the material used
on the album
tends to be from one complete take, often only one take was required.
And the only
instrument really isolated was the drums. Good musicians are still
capable of making
good music just by playing. What a concept!

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
: although today it's almost always recorded multitrack, much of the
: material used on the album tends to be from one complete take, often
: only one take was required. And the only instrument really isolated
: was the drums. Good musicians are still capable of making good music
: just by playing. What a concept!

The vast majority of jazz recordings (straight ahead jazz, not smooth jazz)
are still one complete take.

[blackburst]

On Sep 15, 5:11*pm, PStamler wrote:
Hi folks:

So...anybody here heard the Beatles reissues that hit the racks last
Wednesday? A Starbuck's near my house has Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul
for $12.95 each.

.Anybody know what was done to them in the course of remastering? Or
how toxic it might have been?

Peace,
Paul

1) The Beatles music was recorded on 2-track up to "I Want To Hold
Your Hand", then onto 4 track (with occasional submixes onto another 4-
track) for most of their career up to the middle of the White Album,
then onto 8 track. Up until about 1968, the mono masters were the
official canon, with the stereos being something of an afterthought.
The stereo and mono mixes sometimes differed significantly.

2) EMI was late to issue the Beatles on CD, waiting until 1987-8.
Those CDs displease fans in several ways: a) they were focused on the
stereo, with no mono counterparts. b) paradoxically, the first four
albums were only issued in mono; c) Help! and Rubber Soul were remixed
from the mults in 1987, differing significantly from the original 1965
mixes; and d) they were subject to the limitations of 1987-8 mastering
technology. This caused 2 decades of bootleg/counterfeit/pirate
releases among Beatles fans. EMI's recent decision to issue remasters
is, in part, to combat this piracy.

3) The new releases are divided into a stereo set and a mono set. In
most cases, the original stereo or mono mix-master tapes were used.
EMI did only a tiny bit of cleanup of dropouts, etc. A few
contemporaneous but never-issued mono and stereo mixes were included
in this set.

4) The stereo set includes the original stereo versions of the first
four albums, but it also uses the 1987 remixes of Help! and Rubber
Soul. The mono set includes the original mono versions of all the
albums (that were issued in mono, up to the White Album) but,
strangely, includes the original 1965 stereo mixes of Help! and Rubber
Soul.

5) Both sets, by today's standards, are very well-mastered and
faithful to the originals. Most listeners will notice no difference
between the 1987-8 CDs and the new ones, but audiophiles, fans, etc
will notice about a 15% improvement in transparency and freq response,
notably smoother in the low register. The packaging is much more
elaborate, but many new buyers are unhappy with the DigiPaks.

6) Some Beatles fans were quite happy with the remixes (from the
mults) done in the past with Yellow Submarine Songtrack and, to a
lesser extent, Love. It is expected that EMI will eventually issue the
entire catalog in this way at some future date (making us AGAIN pay
for the same material!)

7) I didn't mention it earlier, but ALL of the Beatles tapes (mults,
mixes, even acetates) have been transferred to digital at EMI
headquarters.

All in all, EMI did a good job on this one.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Mr Soul wrote:

"Original Final Tapes" means original final 4-track or 8-track tapes
from which the final mix was created from.

If you mean the edited multitrack tapes, yes that would be a good place
to start.
But I haven't read the book (have you?) and I don't know whether the
multitrack
tape or the mixed (mono or stereo) tape was edited (within the songs,
that is), or
both.

I think I know what you're asking, though - whether the best approach would
be to take the raw material and mix it again, to a digital master.

What would be really nice would be if the time synced all the original
tracks and made them available as multi-track wavs, then we could all do
our own mixes.

Cheers

ian

[Scott Dorsey]

Ian Bell wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
Mr Soul wrote:

"Original Final Tapes" means original final 4-track or 8-track tapes
from which the final mix was created from.

If you mean the edited multitrack tapes, yes that would be a good place
to start.
But I haven't read the book (have you?) and I don't know whether the
multitrack
tape or the mixed (mono or stereo) tape was edited (within the songs,
that is), or
both.

I think I know what you're asking, though - whether the best approach would
be to take the raw material and mix it again, to a digital master.

What would be really nice would be if the time synced all the original
tracks and made them available as multi-track wavs, then we could all do
our own mixes.

That's what the original stereo issues were. They took the 2-track masters
and cut stereo records from them. The effect was not exactly good, but you
could mix them down to something useful...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."