Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
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 - that's exactly what I mean. Yes,but of course this would rely on the judgment and creativity of the one doing the mixing. Sure but isn't the same thing true of the person(s) doing the re- mastering? You would have to pick a team of people that had a track record & that you trusted. What would he use as a reference? I would use the original masters. Would he try to make it sound as close as possible to the original record? Not necessarily. Let It Be Naked was a re-mix as I mentioned. It should be mixed using today's standards, procedures & technology. 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? That would be best probably. 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? All good questions whose answer would be determined by the goal of the project. The goal for me would be the "best" sounding Beatles albums based on today's standards & procudures. Mike |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
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. Right - my bad. I called them "final" because they were always transfering tracks to other tracks combining stuff, etc. As I recall, on the Anthology they give each mix-down a number and decide which one to use in the end. Mike |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
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. Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. Keep them as they were, but "improve" the stereo mix. For example, do what the Band did when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the original tracks. Mike |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Mr Soul 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. Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. Keep them as they were, but "improve" the stereo mix. For example, do what the Band did when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the original tracks. There are ONLY TWO ORIGINAL TRACKS. There is not much mixing to do. These were not made on a 2" machine with ukubillion tracks, the original recordings were made in a single take on a 2-track recorder. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Ian Bell wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: 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. But then it wouldn't be The Beatles. Some program, and some band, experimented with that a couple of years back, but I never heard about anything beyond the first shot. You could put your mixes up on their web site. I never listened to any of them because I wasn't interested in the band that had their mixable tracks up to play with. It actually wasn't THE raw tracks, it was edited "stems," so you didn't have to be a very good engineer to make at least a passable mix. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Mr Soul wrote:
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. Sure but isn't the same thing true of the person(s) doing the re- mastering? Not really, because the goals of mastering and mixing are different. Sometimes you can correct mistakes or questionable judgment in the mastering phase, but that's not what it's supposed to be for. I would use the original masters. [as a reference for the re-mix] If you mean the original mix that was sent to the lab to cut the lacquers, yes, that would probably be as faithful as possible to the original intended sound. Would he try to make it sound as close as possible to the original record? Not necessarily. Let It Be Naked was a re-mix as I mentioned. It should be mixed using today's standards, procedures & technology. There's mixing, and then there's re-mixing. Usually when there's a re-mix, the idea is to create something substantially different from the original, but retaining some recognizable elements of the original. I don't know what Let It Be Naked is. The goal for me would be the "best" sounding Beatles albums based on today's standards & procudures. But that would no longer be The Beatles, but it might be interesting. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
"Mr Soul" wrote in message
... 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. Right - my bad. I called them "final" because they were always transfering tracks to other tracks combining stuff, etc. As I recall, on the Anthology they give each mix-down a number and decide which one to use in the end. And _I_ see what _you_ meant. Obviously, if you're bouncing tracks, there are "intermediate" session tapes. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
"Mr Soul" wrote in message
... 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. Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. Keep them as they were, but "improve" the stereo mix. For example, do what the Band did when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the original tracks. I generally prefer stereo to mono, but... Good mono can be really fine -- if the recording is mixed for mono. Buddy Holly and Jonathan & Darlene come to mind. What might be more pleasing than a poor stereo mix is a good mono mix, with the discreet application of synthesized ambience to (only) the side and rear speakers. This adds lateral sound without altering the original recording. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
I don't know what Let It Be Naked is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_It_Be%E2%80%A6_Naked Let It Be Naked was Paul McCartney's re-release of Let It Be that removed all the Phil Spector production. The story is that Paul wasn't really happy with Spector production or even with the decision to give it to Spector. So, he had all the original tracks transfered to digital & re-mixed. It was interesting to listen to but IMO it was not as good as the original because I think that Spector did a good job with doing something with the songs, given the dis-functional state that the band was in at the time. The goal for me would be the "best" sounding Beatles albums based on today's standards & procudures. But that would no longer be The Beatles, but it might be interesting. It would no longer be the old Beatles' records but it could be really good. Mike |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
There are ONLY TWO ORIGINAL TRACKS. *There is not much mixing to do.
These were not made on a 2" machine with ukubillion tracks, the original recordings were made in a single take on a 2-track recorder. I'm confused about what you are saying. On the early Beatles's recordings, wasn't there a 4-track tape that contained the final tracks to were mixed to 2 tracks? On Abbey Road, wasn't there an 8- track tape that contained the final tracks that were mixed to stereo? You seem to be saying that there weren't? Mike |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
William Sommerwerck wrote:
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. Isn't that what the MFSL Original Master Recordings did (first analogue than to CD)? I've compared them to the SRMs and they sound better to me. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Mr Soul wrote:
There are ONLY TWO ORIGINAL TRACKS. =A0There is not much mixing to do. These were not made on a 2" machine with ukubillion tracks, the original recordings were made in a single take on a 2-track recorder. I'm confused about what you are saying. On the early Beatles's recordings, wasn't there a 4-track tape that contained the final tracks to were mixed to 2 tracks? No. The first four albums were recorded to 2-track. The tracks were generally split between instruments and vocals so the mix could be tweaked a little bit before release. These were mixed to mono for release. "Remixing" only involves taking the 2-track and mixing it to mono. Some really boneheaded idiot at EMI got the idea many years later of releasing the 2-track session tapes as "stereo" albums. They are almost unlistenable without pushing the MONO button on your preamp at home. On Abbey Road, wasn't there an 8- track tape that contained the final tracks that were mixed to stereo? You seem to be saying that there weren't? Abbey Road is not one of the early Beatles recordings. Many of the later recordings were made to multitrack formats.. some of them done by ping-ponging though multiple generations. The technology was totally different and so were the production methods. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Scott Dorsey wrote:
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 No, I meant go back on stage or more further to the 4 tracks and to the previous generation 4 tracks that were bounced prior to overdubbing more tracks. In other words the first generation of each recorded track by how ever many tracks thay liad down, all in a multitrack wav file. Cheers Ian |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mr Soul 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. Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. Keep them as they were, but "improve" the stereo mix. For example, do what the Band did when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the original tracks. There are ONLY TWO ORIGINAL TRACKS. There is not much mixing to do. These were not made on a 2" machine with ukubillion tracks, the original recordings were made in a single take on a 2-track recorder. --scott That's true only of the first four albums. From then on they had 4 track and did lots of bouncing between 4 track machines and later had 8 track. Cheers Ian |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Mr Soul wrote:
Let It Be Naked was Paul McCartney's re-release of Let It Be that removed all the Phil Spector production. The story is that Paul wasn't really happy with Spector production or even with the decision to give it to Spector. So, he had all the original tracks transfered to digital & re-mixed. OK, that's a genuine "remix" where you end up with something quite different from the original mix of the tracks. Often a remix will only keep a small part of the original, like part of the vocal track. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues - In depth - Sound On Sound
Digital Edition for subscribers:
http://ukdigital.soundonsound.com/ Paper edition on sale nowish. geoff |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Mike Rivers wrote:
Mr Soul wrote: Let It Be Naked was Paul McCartney's re-release of Let It Be that removed all the Phil Spector production. The story is that Paul wasn't really happy with Spector production or even with the decision to give it to Spector. So, he had all the original tracks transfered to digital & re-mixed. OK, that's a genuine "remix" where you end up with something quite different from the original mix of the tracks. Often a remix will only keep a small part of the original, like part of the vocal track. Or a remix can be faithful to the original intentions, with the original tracks cleaned up, and mixed without a view to the constraints of the out-dated and limiting medium. Like so drums and bass can be heard properly (Ringo was wrapt with Let Ib Be Naked for this reason). geoff |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Mr Soul" wrote in message ... 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. Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. Keep them as they were, but "improve" the stereo mix. For example, do what the Band did when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the original tracks. I generally prefer stereo to mono, but... Good mono can be really fine -- if the recording is mixed for mono. Buddy Holly and Jonathan & Darlene come to mind. What might be more pleasing than a poor stereo mix is a good mono mix, with the discreet application of synthesized ambience to (only) the side and rear speakers. This adds lateral sound without altering the original recording. I generally find the concept of a band coming from a single dimensional point a little disturbing. From two discrete points is a little better, and real stereo (be it stereo recording or panned mono) best. geoff |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
blackburst wrote:
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!) Nobody is MAKING anybody pay for anything. geoff |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
geoff wrote:
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 Ignored??? Since 1983, everything any ever htough would re-sell on CD has been re sold. That's why they're in trouble now. -- Les Cargill |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Ian Bell wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Mr Soul 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. Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. Keep them as they were, but "improve" the stereo mix. For example, do what the Band did when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the original tracks. There are ONLY TWO ORIGINAL TRACKS. There is not much mixing to do. These were not made on a 2" machine with ukubillion tracks, the original recordings were made in a single take on a 2-track recorder. That's true only of the first four albums. From then on they had 4 track and did lots of bouncing between 4 track machines and later had 8 track. Yes. The last I saw of this thread, we were still talking about With the Beatles, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Richard Webb wrote:
On Thu 2037-Sep-17 14:51, Mike Rivers writes: It actually wasn't THE raw tracks, it was edited "stems," so you didn't have to be a very good engineer to make at least a passable mix. Even so, I'd never allow my creative work to be tinkered with in that way. I would, if I got paid as much for it as the Beatles did. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
geoff wrote:
I generally find the concept of a band coming from a single dimensional point a little disturbing. From two discrete points is a little better, and real stereo (be it stereo recording or panned mono) best. I like to sit in the balcony. Up there, the band is a single point, with the hall reverb being the majority of the actual stereo image. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote: I generally find the concept of a band coming from a single dimensional point a little disturbing. From two discrete points is a little better, and real stereo (be it stereo recording or panned mono) best. I like to sit in the balcony. Up there, the band is a single point, with the hall reverb being the majority of the actual stereo image. --scott So mno mixes with stereo reverb would do it for you. Mind you, I've seen plenty of acts that could be considered 'wide' even from the dress circle. geoff |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
geoff wrote:
Or a remix can be faithful to the original intentions, with the original tracks cleaned up, and mixed without a view to the constraints of the out-dated and limiting medium. Sure, if you apply the rules of grammar to the word "remix." But it's fallen into colloquial usage to mean a very different version than the orignal mix, not just a mix with higher resolution, lower distortion, or less buggered because it had to be in order to fit it on a vinyl disk. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
On Thu 2037-Sep-17 14:51, Mike Rivers writes:
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. But then it wouldn't be The Beatles. Some program, and some band, experimented with that a couple of years back, but I never heard about anything beyond the first shot. You could put your mixes up on their web site. I never listened to any of them because I wasn't interested in the band that had their mixable tracks up to play with. I"d never do that anyway. IF I arranged something, and then either mixed it or caused it to be a certain way, that's what I want the public to hear, not something some doofus created in his back bedroom. MIght be fun for us studio types to play with, but I"d be too afraid that people would actually end up listening to something which wasn't mixed the way I wanted it heard. It actually wasn't THE raw tracks, it was edited "stems," so you didn't have to be a very good engineer to make at least a passable mix. Even so, I'd never allow my creative work to be tinkered with in that way. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
On Sep 17, 11:43*am, Ian Bell wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: 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. EMI has done this, to an extent, on Anthology, Yellow Submarine Songtrack and Love. Some of the 4-track mults from Sgt Pepper escaped EMI custody, and can be found on the net. Do your own mix! |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
On Sep 17, 2:19*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mr Soul wrote: Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. *Keep them as they were, but "improve" the stereo mix. *For example, do what the Band did when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the original tracks. There are ONLY TWO ORIGINAL TRACKS. *There is not much mixing to do. These were not made on a 2" machine with ukubillion tracks, the original recordings were made in a single take on a 2-track recorder. --scott Only on the first albums, Please Please Me and With the Beatles. From that point (late 63) until 1968, it was 4-track, with submixes. From 68-on, it was 8-track. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Scott, you're my audio idol, but I'm VERY conversant with the Beatles
recording history: The first four albums were recorded to 2-track. *The tracks were generally split between instruments and vocals so the mix could be tweaked a little bit before release. George Martin and Norman Smith recorded only the first TWO albums in "twin-track mono." Some really boneheaded idiot at EMI got the idea many years later of releasing the 2-track session tapes as "stereo" albums. George Martin later spun it that way, but it's not true. They were issued in both mono and stereo within days of each other. I bought the original releases in stereo. I have ads showing this, also, as well as pix of Martin accepting an award for Please Please Me with a big STEREO copy of the album behind him. The stereo mixes were done by the original engineer, Norman Smith, at about the same time as the monos. *They are almost unlistenable without pushing the MONO button on your preamp at home. Some people feel that way. I grew up with the stereos. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
On Sep 17, 5:11*pm, Ian Bell wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Mr Soul 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. Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. *Keep them as they were, but "improve" the stereo mix. *For example, do what the Band did when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the original tracks. There are ONLY TWO ORIGINAL TRACKS. *There is not much mixing to do. These were not made on a 2" machine with ukubillion tracks, the original recordings were made in a single take on a 2-track recorder. --scott That's true only of the first four albums. From then on they had 4 track and did lots of bouncing between 4 track machines and later had 8 track. Cheers Ian sigh, No, the first TWO albums. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
On Sep 17, 6:25*pm, "geoff" wrote:
blackburst wrote: 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!) Nobody is MAKING anybody pay for anything. geoff To crazy fans like me who will pay for the smightest upgrade? |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Mike Rivers wrote:
geoff wrote: Or a remix can be faithful to the original intentions, with the original tracks cleaned up, and mixed without a view to the constraints of the out-dated and limiting medium. Sure, if you apply the rules of grammar to the word "remix." But it's fallen into colloquial usage to mean a very different version than the orignal mix, not just a mix with higher resolution, lower distortion, or less buggered because it had to be in order to fit it on a vinyl disk. More often than not yes. But doesn't have to be. geoff |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
blackburst wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:25 pm, "geoff" wrote: blackburst wrote: 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!) Nobody is MAKING anybody pay for anything. geoff To crazy fans like me who will pay for the smightest upgrade? So they are pushers who have a hook into us ?! ;-) geoff |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
blackburst wrote:
Scott, you're my audio idol, but I'm VERY conversant with the Beatles recording history: Don't pick me as your idol, pick somebody that actually knows something. Jack Renner or E.C. Wente or somebody. The first four albums were recorded to 2-track. =A0The tracks were generally split between instruments and vocals so the mix could be tweake= d a little bit before release. George Martin and Norman Smith recorded only the first TWO albums in "twin-track mono." I'll take your word for it. It's been 30 years since I even thought about any of this. Some really boneheaded idiot at EMI got the idea many years later of releasing the 2-track session tapes as "stereo" albums. George Martin later spun it that way, but it's not true. They were issued in both mono and stereo within days of each other. I bought the original releases in stereo. I have ads showing this, also, as well as pix of Martin accepting an award for Please Please Me with a big STEREO copy of the album behind him. The stereo mixes were done by the original engineer, Norman Smith, at about the same time as the monos. I'll buy that too, but it doesn't make it any less boneheaded. =A0They are almost unlistenable without pushing the MONO button on your preamp at hom= e. Some people feel that way. I grew up with the stereos. There's nothing in the middle, where the music is supposed to be! --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... geoff wrote: I generally find the concept of a band coming from a single dimensional point a little disturbing. From two discrete points is a little better, and real stereo (be it stereo recording or panned mono) best. I like to sit in the balcony. Up there, the band is a single point, with the hall reverb being the majority of the actual stereo image. --scott That sounds more like it. A modern reinforced four piece 'band' is not an orchestra or even a quartet,there is no 'spread', it is a mono sound source within the hall.The listener then locates this image in a stereo space that gives clues to depth,width and centering. When I go to a concert, I want the L&R stage speakers to give me a mono image.The hall will give me all the spacial information I need. Replace 'hall' with 'room' and a mono sound source can bounce off the floor,walls and locate the image. Stereo came about to enhance this effect for small rooms and for pleasurable headphone listening. Keith. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
On Thu 2037-Sep-17 19:30, Scott Dorsey writes:
It actually wasn't THE raw tracks, it was edited "stems," so you didn't have to be a very good engineer to make at least a passable mix. Even so, I'd never allow my creative work to be tinkered with in that way. I would, if I got paid as much for it as the Beatles did. Yah, maybe then. But, even then, I suppose I"d have to think about it, and see how much additional dough would cross my palm for doing it. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... 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. "Then I have the CD reissue which sounds a little wierd because the two channels are a little out of phase" Perhaps this was intentional to give some sort of stereo image for the uninitiated. As witnessed by some comments here, mono is perceived as downright painful. I remember a Buddy Holly LP when this was done to a mono recording so that they could rebrand it stereo! Pure marketing exercise. Cheers, Keith. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:37:16 +1000, "Keith."
wrote: A modern reinforced four piece 'band' is not an orchestra or even a quartet,there is no 'spread', it is a mono sound source within the hall. Often two mono sound sources. Many PAs are run in stereo. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Beatles reissues
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ian Bell wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Mr Soul 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. Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. Keep them as they were, but "improve" the stereo mix. For example, do what the Band did when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the original tracks. There are ONLY TWO ORIGINAL TRACKS. There is not much mixing to do. These were not made on a 2" machine with ukubillion tracks, the original recordings were made in a single take on a 2-track recorder. That's true only of the first four albums. From then on they had 4 track and did lots of bouncing between 4 track machines and later had 8 track. Yes. The last I saw of this thread, we were still talking about With the Beatles, though. --scott Ah, sorry, came in late, thought is was still as headed. Cheers Ian |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Everest LP reissues | Audio Opinions | |||
Analog Productions reissues. | Audio Opinions | |||
OPINIONS? 1176 reissues | Pro Audio |