[Mr Soul]

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

[Mr Soul]

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

[Mr Soul]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[William Sommerwerck]

"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.

[William Sommerwerck]

"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.

[Mr Soul]

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

[Mr Soul]

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

[Michael Dines[_2_]]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

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

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Geoff]

Digital Edition for subscribers:
http://ukdigital.soundonsound.com/

Paper edition on sale nowish.

geoff

[Geoff]

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

[Geoff]

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

[Geoff]

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

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Geoff]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

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.

[blackburst]

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!

[blackburst]

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.

[blackburst]

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.

[blackburst]

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.

[blackburst]

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?

[Geoff]

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

[Geoff]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Keith.[_2_]]

"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.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

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.

[Keith.[_2_]]

"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.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 18 Sep 2009 01:43:06 GMT,
(Richard Webb) wrote:

Even so, I'd never allow my creative work to be tinkered
with in that way.

Not even if they offered you money? Precious! :-)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

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.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

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