Beatles "remasterings" -- a follow-up

[William Sommerwerck]

This is not intended to provoke another argument. I'd simply like some
answers -- if they exist.

The current "Sound + Vision", in its new "large type" format, has several
articles on the Beatles reissue. On page 26, we read...

"Over the past four years, that team has worked at Abbey Road Studios to
transfer (and sometimes repair) the Beatles' original recordings at 192 kHz
/ 24 bits."

On page 27 we read...

S+T: "No baking of the original multitrack tapes was necessary?"
Massey: "No. Some of the leader tape was coming apart; the glue had dried.
But there were no problems at all with the actual oxide. The tapes have
really been looked after."
S+T: "So all of the music we're hearing is from the original tapes?"
Massey: "Yes."

The use of "original recordings", "multitrack tapes", and "original tapes"
implies that the original-session tapes were used (what I insist on calling
the "true" and only master tapes). On the other hand, on page 28, it sez...

S+T: "And so this [minimal use of compression on the stereo versions] was an
effort to help make the primitive-stereo mixes come across more powerfully
to the new generation?"
Massey: "Yes."

The Beatles were, for the first few years, interested primarily in the mono
mix. So they laid down tracks without much regard to creating a stereo
version. Therefore, the "primitive-stereo mixes" would presumably have been
from the cutting masters, not the session tapes. But...

S+T: "Were there any forest-for-the-trees instances where, after working on
individual tracks for a while, something new became apparent when you
relistened to the album as a whole?"
Massey: "I do remember that, once we'd done 'Revolver' for the first time,
Allan [Rouse] did come up with quite a few suggestions. Overall, he thought,
we might have been a little too reverent."

If they were working with the cutting masters, why would they be paying much
attention to individual tracks? There isn't much to work with, with only one
or two channels.

S+T: "It has been stated that the lack of bonus tracks is due to the desire
to maintain 'the authenticity and integrity of the original albums'. If
that's the case, why do the official stereo releases of 'Help!' and 'Rubber
Soul' have George Martin's 1987 remixes and no the original 1965 mixes?"

I don't see how you can (much) "remix" a two-track cutting master. The
implication is that Martin used the session tapes.

And finally...

S+T: "Guy [Massey], you did some of the best Beatles surround mixes to date
for the DVD of 'Help!'. How about a 5.1 mix of the entire catalog" Isn't
that something you'd love to do?
Massey: What do you think? [Laughs.] Yeah, of course, I would love to be
given that opportunity.

Again, it's hard to mix 5.1 from a 2.0 source.

The weight of the "evidence" is that these recordings were made from the
session tapes, not the cutting masters. Does anyone know for sure?

--
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Dr. Edwin H. Land

[Wecan do it]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message ...
> This is not intended to provoke another argument. I'd simply
> like some
> answers -- if they exist.
>
> The current "Sound + Vision", in its new "large type"
> format, has several
> articles on the Beatles reissue. On page 26, we read...
>
> "Over the past four years, that team has worked at Abbey
> Road Studios to
> transfer (and sometimes repair) the Beatles' original
> recordings at 192 kHz
> / 24 bits."
>
> On page 27 we read...
>
> S+T: "No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
> necessary?"
> Massey: "No. Some of the leader tape was coming apart; the
> glue had dried.
> But there were no problems at all with the actual oxide. The
> tapes have
> really been looked after."
> S+T: "So all of the music we're hearing is from the original
> tapes?"
> Massey: "Yes."
>
> The use of "original recordings", "multitrack tapes", and
> "original tapes"
> implies that the original-session tapes were used (what I
> insist on calling
> the "true" and only master tapes). On the other hand, on
> page 28, it sez...
>
> S+T: "And so this [minimal use of compression on the stereo
> versions] was an
> effort to help make the primitive-stereo mixes come across
> more powerfully
> to the new generation?"
> Massey: "Yes."
>
> The Beatles were, for the first few years, interested
> primarily in the mono
> mix. So they laid down tracks without much regard to
> creating a stereo
> version. Therefore, the "primitive-stereo mixes" would
> presumably have been
> from the cutting masters, not the session tapes. But...
>
> S+T: "Were there any forest-for-the-trees instances where,
> after working on
> individual tracks for a while, something new became apparent
> when you
> relistened to the album as a whole?"
> Massey: "I do remember that, once we'd done 'Revolver' for
> the first time,
> Allan [Rouse] did come up with quite a few suggestions.
> Overall, he thought,
> we might have been a little too reverent."
>
> If they were working with the cutting masters, why would
> they be paying much
> attention to individual tracks? There isn't much to work
> with, with only one
> or two channels.
>
> S+T: "It has been stated that the lack of bonus tracks is
> due to the desire
> to maintain 'the authenticity and integrity of the original
> albums'. If
> that's the case, why do the official stereo releases of
> 'Help!' and 'Rubber
> Soul' have George Martin's 1987 remixes and no the original
> 1965 mixes?"
>
> I don't see how you can (much) "remix" a two-track cutting
> master. The
> implication is that Martin used the session tapes.
>
> And finally...
>
> S+T: "Guy [Massey], you did some of the best Beatles
> surround mixes to date
> for the DVD of 'Help!'. How about a 5.1 mix of the entire
> catalog" Isn't
> that something you'd love to do?
> Massey: What do you think? [Laughs.] Yeah, of course, I
> would love to be
> given that opportunity.
>
> Again, it's hard to mix 5.1 from a 2.0 source.
>
> The weight of the "evidence" is that these recordings were
> made from the
> session tapes, not the cutting masters. Does anyone know for
> sure?
>
> --
> "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the
> right
> questions." -- Dr. Edwin H. Land

You still fail to distinguish between when you quote re
MASTERED and re MIXED. The terms are not interchangeable and
you are using them as such. A surround remix is not a
remaster it is a remix.

The stereo mixdowns were done right after the mono mixdowns.
Try reading some of the history by Geoff Emerick, the man who
did the stereo mixdowns, as an afterthought, right after
mixing the mono versions and right before running down to the
lathe and mastering it.

I still think you are making up the words "cutting master".
Several here on RAP have weighed in stating that although they
were professional mastering engineers and made a living
cutting acetates for manufacturing records for decades they
never heard this term you made up.


peace
dawg
>
>

[William Sommerwerck]

Dear Dawg;

The question I asked was about the origins of the current recordings -- were
they made from the session tapes or the cutting masters?

I'm terribly sorry that the entire recording industry doesn't like the term
"cutting master" (though the term makes perfect sense). How about "the
mixed-down recording used to cut the LP or CD master disk"?

I asked this question not long ago because I was not the only person
confused about the CDs' origins. The recording industry insists
(self-servingly, in my view) in calling virtually every dub in the chain a
"master".

Can someone actually answer the question I and others have asked? The
"Sound+Vision" article strongly implies that the engineers went back to the
original session tapes. Did they?

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> This is not intended to provoke another argument. I'd simply like some
> answers -- if they exist.
>
> The current "Sound + Vision", in its new "large type" format, has several
> articles on the Beatles reissue. On page 26, we read...
>
> "Over the past four years, that team has worked at Abbey Road Studios to
> transfer (and sometimes repair) the Beatles' original recordings at 192 kHz
> / 24 bits."
>
> On page 27 we read...
>
> S+T: "No baking of the original multitrack tapes was necessary?"
> Massey: "No. Some of the leader tape was coming apart; the glue had dried.
> But there were no problems at all with the actual oxide. The tapes have
> really been looked after."
> S+T: "So all of the music we're hearing is from the original tapes?"
> Massey: "Yes."
>
> The use of "original recordings", "multitrack tapes", and "original tapes"
> implies that the original-session tapes were used (what I insist on calling
> the "true" and only master tapes). On the other hand, on page 28, it sez...
>
> S+T: "And so this [minimal use of compression on the stereo versions] was an
> effort to help make the primitive-stereo mixes come across more powerfully
> to the new generation?"
> Massey: "Yes."
>
> The Beatles were, for the first few years, interested primarily in the mono
> mix. So they laid down tracks without much regard to creating a stereo
> version. Therefore, the "primitive-stereo mixes" would presumably have been
> from the cutting masters, not the session tapes. But...
>
> S+T: "Were there any forest-for-the-trees instances where, after working on
> individual tracks for a while, something new became apparent when you
> relistened to the album as a whole?"
> Massey: "I do remember that, once we'd done 'Revolver' for the first time,
> Allan [Rouse] did come up with quite a few suggestions. Overall, he thought,
> we might have been a little too reverent."
>
> If they were working with the cutting masters, why would they be paying much
> attention to individual tracks? There isn't much to work with, with only one
> or two channels.

It is fairly common to refer to a whole song, mixed, as a track.

> S+T: "It has been stated that the lack of bonus tracks is due to the desire
> to maintain 'the authenticity and integrity of the original albums'. If
> that's the case, why do the official stereo releases of 'Help!' and 'Rubber
> Soul' have George Martin's 1987 remixes and no the original 1965 mixes?"
>
> I don't see how you can (much) "remix" a two-track cutting master. The
> implication is that Martin used the session tapes.
>
> And finally...
>
> S+T: "Guy [Massey], you did some of the best Beatles surround mixes to date
> for the DVD of 'Help!'. How about a 5.1 mix of the entire catalog" Isn't
> that something you'd love to do?
> Massey: What do you think? [Laughs.] Yeah, of course, I would love to be
> given that opportunity.
>
> Again, it's hard to mix 5.1 from a 2.0 source.
>
> The weight of the "evidence" is that these recordings were made from the
> session tapes, not the cutting masters. Does anyone know for sure?

Your last point about 5.1 is irrelevant in this context.

Otherwise I feel you are still mired in confusion regarding commonly
used terminology.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Wecan do it]

>> The Beatles were, for the first few years, interested
>> primarily in the mono mix. So they laid down tracks without
>> much regard to creating a stereo version. Therefore, the
>> "primitive-stereo mixes" would presumably have been from
>> the cutting masters, not the session tapes. But...


William:

So here we have "cutting masters" by your earlier definitions
the master tape the mastering engineer fed into the lathe to
make the acetate for the vinyl record. The "primitive -stereo
mixes" coming from the MONO cutting masters ??????? not the
multi track session tapes??????
You are digging a deep hole here, watch it.

peace
dawg

[Richard Crowley]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
> Can someone actually answer the question I and others have asked? The
> "Sound+Vision" article strongly implies that the engineers went back to
> the
> original session tapes. Did they?

It seems abundantly clear that nobody here actually knows the
answer to any of those questions. But that doesn't keep you-
all from chewing on it and throwing food at each other.

I personally don't trust anyting printed in the popular press, or
even the trade press to be technically accurate. Those publications
can't afford to hire and pay people who are technically astute,
so you must take whatever is published with a very large dose
of skepticism.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> The weight of the "evidence" is that these recordings were made from the
>> session tapes, not the cutting masters. Does anyone know for sure?

> Your last point about 5.1 is irrelevant in this context.

It's semi-relevant, because such recordings would have to be created from
studio masters.


> Otherwise I feel you are still mired in confusion regarding commonly
> used terminology.

Terminology has nothing to do with it.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" wrote ...

>> Can someone actually answer the question I and others have asked?
>> The "Sound+Vision" article strongly implies that the engineers went
>> back to the original session tapes. Did they?

> It seems abundantly clear that nobody here actually knows the
> answer to any of those questions. But that doesn't keep you-
> all from chewing on it and throwing food at each other.

> I personally don't trust anyting printed in the popular press, or
> even the trade press to be technically accurate. Those publications
> can't afford to hire and pay people who are technically astute,
> so you must take whatever is published with a very large dose
> of skepticism.

At least you understand what the (very simple) question was.

As for technical accuracy... It's declined greatly in the past decade,
particularly in photo magazines.

[Wecan do it]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message ...
>>> The weight of the "evidence" is that these recordings were
>>> made from the
>>> session tapes, not the cutting masters. Does anyone know
>>> for sure?
>
>> Your last point about 5.1 is irrelevant in this context.
>
> It's semi-relevant, because such recordings would have to be
> created from
> studio masters.

William:

Studio master (whats?????????) Another term not used by
recording people because it is incomplete.

Perhaps you mean the multi track tapes, which the many books
published by the people who made the original Beatles
recordings tell us that the state-of-the-art in recording at
the time Revolver was recorded was bounced 4-track tapes.

Tapes with individual tracks were either unsynced (to the
final recording) fragments that had been used to bounce with
other tracks as the process progressed or the last 4 track
containing bounced down track(s) and one, two or three tracks
that may have only had one take of something at any given
spot. Geoff Emerick tells us that one of the last tracks
recorded with this process was Paul's bass track which he
insisted on doing last so he could punch in a perfect take.

The unsynced fragments were used decades later to remix stuff
like the LOVE album.

Each song was mixed down to a piece of mono or stereo tape
that was spliced together to make the master tape that was
used to drive the input to the lathe that created any one of
the many acetates used to make one of the mothers which was
used to make the many stampers that were used to press one of
the millions of LP sold.

Why need to invent new terms and then get all confused trying
to explain something that is generally understood?

Admit it, you never recorded and released a song have you?

peace
dawg

[William Sommerwerck]

> Each song was mixed down to a piece of mono or stereo tape
> that was spliced together to make the master tape that was
> used to drive the input to the lathe that created any one of
> the many acetates used to make one of the mothers which was
> used to make the many stampers that were used to press one of
> the millions of LP sold.

I have no argument with this.


> Why need to invent new terms and then get all confused trying
> to explain something that is generally understood?

Because in this particular case, there is legitimate confusion about the
source of these new CDs. Some people say (or imply) that they're taken from
what you call "the master tape ... used to drive the input to the lathe"
(ie, the tapes created 40 to 45 years ago). The "S+V" article seems to be
saying that the original multi-track tapes, made at the original recording
sessions, were pulled out and transferred using the best-possible modern
digital equipment. Which is it? Inquiring minds want to know!

"Jargon" is not, per se, a derogatory word. But if the recording industry
uses "master" (or worse, "original") to describe multi-generational dubs of
the multi-track studio tapes, why should it be surprised when people are
confused about what's going on? I make no apologies for condemning the
recording industry's abuse of the common meanings of words.

We could go back to Mobile Fidelity's "re-masterings" of classic recordings.
I don't remember MF being very clear about what tape generation it was
using. Common sense suggested that it was most-likely what I call the
cutting master. No studio in its right mind would let the original session
tapes out of its sight. In this context, "re-mastering" is legitimate only
if you're referring to the acetate master from which the LPs were pressed.


> Admit it, you never recorded and released a song have you?

Nope. But I've made live recordings. And the cassette tapes I sold were
second-generation, dubbed directly from (what I call) the master tape.

[Wecan do it]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message ...
<snip>

> "Jargon" is not, per se, a derogatory word. But if the
> recording industry
> uses "master" (or worse, "original") to describe
> multi-generational dubs > ofthe multi-track studio tapes,
> why should it be surprised when people >are confused about
> what's going on? I make no apologies for condemning >the>
> recording industry's abuse of the common meanings of words.

The industruy has a word for these already. They are called
safety copies.


>
> We could go back to Mobile Fidelity's "re-masterings" of
> classic recordings.
> I don't remember MF being very clear about what tape
> generation it was
> using. Common sense suggested that it was most-likely what I
> call the
> cutting master. No studio in its right mind would let the
> original session
> tapes out of its sight. In this context, "re-mastering" is
> legitimate only
> if you're referring to the acetate master from which the LPs
> were pressed.

I sense a new term about to be coined. If re-mastering is
legitimate only for LP acetate production than of course all
the mastered and remastered CD's are something else. Right?
And what do the mastering houses specilazing in taking the
final 2 track stereo mixdowns from a studio and producing a
red-book, ready to replicate "master" doing?

peace
dawg

[William Sommerwerck]

>> We could go back to Mobile Fidelity's "re-masterings" of
>> classic recordings.
>> I don't remember MF being very clear about what tape
>> generation it was
>> using. Common sense suggested that it was most-likely what I
>> call the
>> cutting master. No studio in its right mind would let the
>> original session
>> tapes out of its sight. In this context, "re-mastering" is
>> legitimate only
>> if you're referring to the acetate master from which the LPs
>> were pressed.

> I sense a new term about to be coined. If re-mastering is
> legitimate only for LP acetate production than of course all
> the mastered and remastered CD's are something else. Right?
> And what do the mastering houses specilazing in taking the
> final 2 track stereo mixdowns from a studio and producing a
> red-book, ready to replicate "master" doing?

I was talking about LPs. See above.

I'm not amused by people deliberately twisting what I say, in hopes of
getting a rise out of me.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> This is not intended to provoke another argument. I'd simply like some
> answers -- if they exist.
>
> The current "Sound + Vision", in its new "large type" format, has several
> articles on the Beatles reissue. On page 26, we read...
>
> "Over the past four years, that team has worked at Abbey Road Studios to
> transfer (and sometimes repair) the Beatles' original recordings at 192 kHz
> / 24 bits."
>
> On page 27 we read...
>
> S+T: "No baking of the original multitrack tapes was necessary?"
> Massey: "No. Some of the leader tape was coming apart; the glue had dried.
> But there were no problems at all with the actual oxide. The tapes have
> really been looked after."
> S+T: "So all of the music we're hearing is from the original tapes?"
> Massey: "Yes."
>
> The use of "original recordings", "multitrack tapes", and "original tapes"
> implies that the original-session tapes were used (what I insist on calling
> the "true" and only master tapes). On the other hand, on page 28, it sez...
>
> S+T: "And so this [minimal use of compression on the stereo versions] was an
> effort to help make the primitive-stereo mixes come across more powerfully
> to the new generation?"
> Massey: "Yes."
>
> The Beatles were, for the first few years, interested primarily in the mono
> mix. So they laid down tracks without much regard to creating a stereo
> version. Therefore, the "primitive-stereo mixes" would presumably have been
> from the cutting masters, not the session tapes. But...
>
> S+T: "Were there any forest-for-the-trees instances where, after working on
> individual tracks for a while, something new became apparent when you
> relistened to the album as a whole?"
> Massey: "I do remember that, once we'd done 'Revolver' for the first time,
> Allan [Rouse] did come up with quite a few suggestions. Overall, he thought,
> we might have been a little too reverent."
>
> If they were working with the cutting masters, why would they be paying much
> attention to individual tracks? There isn't much to work with, with only one
> or two channels.
>
> S+T: "It has been stated that the lack of bonus tracks is due to the desire
> to maintain 'the authenticity and integrity of the original albums'. If
> that's the case, why do the official stereo releases of 'Help!' and 'Rubber
> Soul' have George Martin's 1987 remixes and no the original 1965 mixes?"
>
> I don't see how you can (much) "remix" a two-track cutting master. The
> implication is that Martin used the session tapes.
>
> And finally...
>
> S+T: "Guy [Massey], you did some of the best Beatles surround mixes to date
> for the DVD of 'Help!'. How about a 5.1 mix of the entire catalog" Isn't
> that something you'd love to do?
> Massey: What do you think? [Laughs.] Yeah, of course, I would love to be
> given that opportunity.
>
> Again, it's hard to mix 5.1 from a 2.0 source.
>
> The weight of the "evidence" is that these recordings were made from the
> session tapes, not the cutting masters. Does anyone know for sure?
>

The same people said something different in their interview for SOS from
which it is quite clear that what you call the cutting masters were used
for the current crop of remasters.

The Love album was a separate project and, from looking at the video of
George and his son working on it, it is clear they were remixing from 4
track tapes.

Cheers

Ian

[William Sommerwerck]

> The same people said something different in their interview for SOS
> from which it is quite clear that what you call the cutting masters
> were used for the current crop of remasters.

Assuming that's correct... Whey did they spend so much time on these tapes?
The amount of time they took -- and the detailed effort they seemed to
expend -- seems more consistent with remixing the original studio tapes.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> The same people said something different in their interview for SOS
>> from which it is quite clear that what you call the cutting masters
>> were used for the current crop of remasters.
>
> Assuming that's correct... Whey did they spend so much time on these tapes?
> The amount of time they took -- and the detailed effort they seemed to
> expend -- seems more consistent with remixing the original studio tapes.
>
>


There is no evidence they spent a 'lot of time' but they did it over a
period of 4 years, presumably in between everything else they had to do.
The only 'detailed effort' they mentioned was care in the digitisation
process, critical listening, fixing drop outs, a very little EQ and some
limiting. It's a fair sized catalogue.

Cheers

Ian

[Arkansan Raider]

Ian Bell wrote:

> It's a fair sized catalogue.

Not that you're given to understatement or anything.

LOL

Nice.


---Jeff

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> The same people said something different in their interview for SOS
>> from which it is quite clear that what you call the cutting masters
>> were used for the current crop of remasters.
>
> Assuming that's correct... Whey did they spend so much time on these
> tapes? The amount of time they took -- and the detailed effort they
> seemed to expend -- seems more consistent with remixing the original
> studio tapes.

Half a day per song ?

geoff

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> The "S+V" article seems to be
> saying that the original multi-track tapes, made at the original recording
> sessions, were pulled out and transferred using the best-possible modern
> digital equipment.

That is not what the magazine seems to be saying, judging only by the
quotations you provided. And therein lies the problem: bunches of folks
understand what the S+V writers are saying. You aren't clear on the use
of terminilogy in this particular field.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[William Sommerwerck]

>> The "S+V" article seems to be
>> saying that the original multi-track tapes, made at the original
recording
>> sessions, were pulled out and transferred using the best-possible modern
>> digital equipment.

> That is not what the magazine seems to be saying, judging only by the
> quotations you provided. And therein lies the problem: bunches of folks
> understand what the S+V writers are saying. You aren't clear on the use
> of terminolgy in this particular field.

Well, I'm not alone. Anyhow, in my original post I neglected to include this
quote:

Massey: The Studer A80 tape machine was the main piece of vintage gear.

The A80 is a two-track machine. If that was their "main piece", then they
must have been transferring mono or two-channel tapes -- not the original
studio tapes. However, someone still needs to explain the following:

S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was necessary?

Now, I've never heard two-channel tapes called multitrack recordings. (This
usage has carried over to SACDs. Surround SACDs are called "multi-ch", even
though regular stereo recordings are, by numerical definition, multi-ch.)
The implication is the original studio tapes were used.

And then S+V asks "So all of the music we're hearing is from the original
tapes?", and the answer is "Yes". I'm sorry -- I don't care what industry
usage is -- how can what is at least a second-generation dub be an
"original" tape?

[Eric B[_2_]]

Ask a simple question and get slammed.
It was weird to see that article in Sound and Vibration. It didn't
have much information. I learned almost as much at the Starbucks where
I bought Rubber Soul on impulse because it took me back to the High
School party when I first heard it. I like the new CD I bought. It
sounds good and my kids have destroyed all my other Beatles CDs. I
still have the old British vinyl releases. But the surface noise bugs
me too much to listen to them.
People today seem to have no understanding of the state of the
recording technology in the 60s and before. Bouncing 4 tracks is not
like anything that is done today. And most of it was mixed for radio
which was mostly mono in the early days. I remember reading that they
(I forget if it was Martin, Emerick, or McCartney) were astounded and
surprised that the 2 track 'master' with vocals on one side was
released in the US as stereo. Apparently it was intended to allow the
Capital records people to adjust the music to instrument mix for
mono.
They, the musicians and the recordists had to invent everything they
did. People now select from digital presets. I remember reading an
article by George Martin about recording. His idea of how to record a
pop drum set was with one omni. It took me years to come around to
understanding why. People who came up after the 70s seem not to
understand the mind set at all. Sessions were performances. It was
only during the Beatles era that multitrack- real multitrack became
possible.
Cheers!
Eric B

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> >> The "S+V" article seems to be
> >> saying that the original multi-track tapes, made at the original
> recording
> >> sessions, were pulled out and transferred using the best-possible modern
> >> digital equipment.
>
> > That is not what the magazine seems to be saying, judging only by the
> > quotations you provided. And therein lies the problem: bunches of folks
> > understand what the S+V writers are saying. You aren't clear on the use
> > of terminolgy in this particular field.
>
> Well, I'm not alone. Anyhow, in my original post I neglected to include this
> quote:
>
> Massey: The Studer A80 tape machine was the main piece of vintage gear.
>
> The A80 is a two-track machine.

The A-80 is a two track, four track, eight track, sixteen track, or
twenty-four track recorder, depending on model. I owned the first A-80
that Studer sold into the North American continent after taking over
distribution from Gotham in New York.

It was an A-80-VUT eight track machine, meaning it had VU meters, and
was "transportable", with a large umbilical connecting the deck and the
electronics. As of May of this year it is the property of John Lawson,
an appropriate curator for such a device.

> If that was their "main piece", then they
> must have been transferring mono or two-channel tapes -- not the original
> studio tapes. However, someone still needs to explain the following:
>
> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was necessary?
>
> Now, I've never heard two-channel tapes called multitrack recordings. (This
> usage has carried over to SACDs. Surround SACDs are called "multi-ch", even
> though regular stereo recordings are, by numerical definition, multi-ch.)
> The implication is the original studio tapes were used.
>
> And then S+V asks "So all of the music we're hearing is from the original
> tapes?", and the answer is "Yes". I'm sorry -- I don't care what industry
> usage is -- how can what is at least a second-generation dub be an
> "original" tape?

Don't believe everything you think. let alone what you read.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[William Sommerwerck]

"Eric B" > wrote in message
...

> Ask a simple question and get slammed.

So what is your opinion about the "origin" of the current releases?

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Eric B" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Ask a simple question and get slammed.
>
> So what is your opinion about the "origin" of the current releases?

It states pretty clearly on each disc sleeve whatthe origin is, and this has
ben further confirmed in subsequent interviews.

Because somebody queries an established truth does not automatically mean
that truth is now flawed or suspect - just like the current
'digital/analogue' thread.

I had the misfortune to belong to lists on the topic of 'The Hum', from
which I occasionally suffer. The main criteria on those lists seems to be
that the well-known obvious boring old truth cannot possibly be correct, and
all other postulations are inherently worthy of consideration (if not
outright belief), even if mututally exclusive/incompatible.


geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

>> And then S+V asks "So all of the music we're hearing is from the original
>> tapes?", and the answer is "Yes". I'm sorry -- I don't care what industry
>> usage is -- how can what is at least a second-generation dub be an
>> "original" tape?

> Don't believe everything you think.

Oh, I don't. It took a long time to outgrow that (though it was at least two
decades before I joined this group).

> Let alone what you read.

So what is your opinion? Original session tapes? Or something farther down
the line?

[Arkansan Raider]

Eric B wrote:

> I remember reading an
> article by George Martin about recording. His idea of how to record a
> pop drum set was with one omni. It took me years to come around to
> understanding why. People who came up after the 70s seem not to
> understand the mind set at all. Sessions were performances. It was
> only during the Beatles era that multitrack- real multitrack became
> possible.
> Cheers!
> Eric B
>

I understand the mindset, and I find it admirable.

You think you could post either a link or citation for that article? I'd
like to read it myself.

Thanks,


---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

> The glossary is at this link:
> http://www.tape.com/resource/recording_terms.html

> I would also recommend this book:

> THE MASTER TAPE BOOK
> by Alan Parsons, Bill Foster, & Chris Hollebone
> published by the Association of Professional Recording Services
> [ISBN #9852001802]

> Some of the terms are used more in the UK than in the U.S., but the gist
of
> it is right, judging by my experience as a sometimes-engineer in LA. (I
> think Scott Dorsey referred you to a similar RIAA document on recommended
> studio practices, and it covers some of the same ground.)

> The book goes on to define "CD Tape Master," "Loop Bin Master," "Original
> Master," "Production Master," and "Safety Copy."

> Because the book was written in 1992, it doesn't get into the extreme
> complexities we run into nowadays with digital files, where things can get
> very complex very quickly. Things were a lot simpler 17 years ago, when
you
> had multitrack tape machines, analog and digital. But the essential
concepts
> are the same.

> When these terms apply to EMI's tapes of The Beatles' albums, the answer
is,
> they used the final tapes that were mixed and edited by George Martin and
his
> team of engineers, approved by The Beatles. These tapes might represent a
> couple of tape generations down from the original tracking sessions, but
> these would be the first tapes of the final finished mixes.

> In film sound, we'd call these the "Print Masters," which is essentially
> what's delivered to the studio.


Thanks for the clarification. I will at least browse the glossary.

> "Master" can mean many different things in modern recording studios.
> I think you're confusing the original multi-track session masters, vs.
> the final mixdown masters.

I'm not confusing anything... the recording industry is. Unless you're
referring to the original session tapes, the term "master" should not be
used without some other noun or qualifier.

[Wecan do it]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message ...
>> The same people said something different in their interview
>> for SOS
>> from which it is quite clear that what you call the cutting
>> masters
>> were used for the current crop of remasters.
>
> Assuming that's correct... Whey did they spend so much time
> on these tapes?
> The amount of time they took -- and the detailed effort they
> seemed to
> expend -- seems more consistent with remixing the original
> studio tapes.

We know how long it may have taken them, not how much time
they spent working on the project. It is possible that the
extended schedule included lots of legal and logistical
problems too.

peace
dawg

[Wecan do it]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

However, someone still needs to explain the following:
>
> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
> necessary?


No baking of John Lennon's corpse was required either, because
neither was used in remastering the Beatles Albums.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> However, someone still needs to explain the following:
>> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
>> necessary?

> No baking of John Lennon's corpse was required either, because
> neither was used in remastering the Beatles Albums.

So why didn't they correct the interviewer's presumed mistake? Intentional
confusion? Not understanding the question?

[Wecan do it]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message ...
>>> However, someone still needs to explain the following:
>>> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
>>> necessary?
>
>> No baking of John Lennon's corpse was required either,
>> because
>> neither was used in remastering the Beatles Albums.
>
> So why didn't they correct the interviewer's presumed
> mistake? Intentional
> confusion? Not understanding the question?

Dear William:

Maybe the joking in the room on the dictation machine tape was
taken literally by the transcriptionist and then when the
interview article hit the editor the day of the publishing
deadline, at the right time to not be copy proofed by someone
who could separate humor from fact the joke was published.

Why? Is it really necessary to know why someone made a
senseless statement? Look at the crap the "media" puts on
television every night. Why do they say it? To sell
advertising. Probably the same reason that EMI let S+V
interview Massy in the first place, to sell more records and
make more $$$$.

Why do you keep insisting that analog is digital. Just because
no one here understands why you keep insisting white is black
does not change the fact that white is white and black is
black and you keep insisting the world if colorblind.

I dunno but both statements appear to be being made by folks
who IMHO need better clues.

peace
dawg

[[email protected]]

On Oct 20, 11:37*am, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
> This is not intended to provoke another argument. I'd simply like some
> answers -- if they exist.
>
> The current "Sound + Vision", in its new "large type" format, has several
> articles on the Beatles reissue. On page 26, we read...
>
> "Over the past four years, that team has worked at Abbey Road Studios to
> transfer (and sometimes repair) the Beatles' original recordings at 192 kHz
> / 24 bits."
>
> On page 27 we read...
>
> S+T: "No baking of the original multitrack tapes was necessary?"
> Massey: "No. Some of the leader tape was coming apart; the glue had dried..
> But there were no problems at all with the actual oxide. The tapes have
> really been looked after."
> S+T: "So all of the music we're hearing is from the original tapes?"
> Massey: "Yes."
>
> The use of "original recordings", "multitrack tapes", and "original tapes"
> implies that the original-session tapes were used (what I insist on calling
> the "true" and only master tapes). On the other hand, on page 28, it sez....
>
> S+T: "And so this [minimal use of compression on the stereo versions] was an
> effort to help make the primitive-stereo mixes come across more powerfully
> to the new generation?"
> Massey: "Yes."
>
> The Beatles were, for the first few years, interested primarily in the mono
> mix. So they laid down tracks without much regard to creating a stereo
> version. Therefore, the "primitive-stereo mixes" would presumably have been
> from the cutting masters, not the session tapes. But...
>
> S+T: "Were there any forest-for-the-trees instances where, after working on
> individual tracks for a while, something new became apparent when you
> relistened to the album as a whole?"
> Massey: "I do remember that, once we'd done 'Revolver' for the first time,
> Allan [Rouse] did come up with quite a few suggestions. Overall, he thought,
> we might have been a little too reverent."
>
> If they were working with the cutting masters, why would they be paying much
> attention to individual tracks? There isn't much to work with, with only one
> or two channels.
>
> S+T: "It has been stated that the lack of bonus tracks is due to the desire
> to maintain 'the authenticity and integrity of the original albums'. If
> that's the case, why do the official stereo releases of 'Help!' and 'Rubber
> Soul' have George Martin's 1987 remixes and no the original 1965 mixes?"
>
> I don't see how you can (much) "remix" a two-track cutting master. The
> implication is that Martin used the session tapes.
>
> And finally...
>
> S+T: "Guy [Massey], you did some of the best Beatles surround mixes to date
> for the DVD of 'Help!'. How about a 5.1 mix of the entire catalog" Isn't
> that something you'd love to do?
> Massey: What do you think? [Laughs.] Yeah, of course, I would love to be
> given that opportunity.
>
> Again, it's hard to mix 5.1 from a 2.0 source.
>
> The weight of the "evidence" is that these recordings were made from the
> session tapes, not the cutting masters. Does anyone know for sure?
>
> --
> "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
> questions." -- Dr. Edwin H. Land

To the best of my knowledge:
1) The stereo set was made almost entirely from the stereo mixdown
tapes made by Smith, Emerick, and others between 1962-1970. In a few
cases, the stereo mixes were made at a later time, but still on analog
in the 60s-70s. The sequenced digital masters are new: as noted, a few
unissued 60s-era stereo mixes were inserted into the sequence, and a
small number of songs were subjected to error correction in ProTools
(example: a duff guitar note in the last verse of Day Tripper. This
correction was made by cloning an earlier protion of the stereo master
and inserting it over the bad spot.) And in one case (Love Me Do), the
mono master was unusable and it was remastered from vinyl.

2) The mono set was likewise made from the Smith-Emerick etc mono
masters made in 1962-70. A few previously unissued mono mixes were
included.

EMI was under great pressure from Beatles collectors to do this right,
using THE best tapes, and by and large, they did.

[Richard Crowley]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
> So what is your opinion? Original session tapes? Or something farther down
> the line?

Why does it matter at all to *us* at *this* point?

Perhaps a large part of my indifference is due to my
charter membership in the "Beatles: So What?" club.

[William Sommerwerck]

To the best of my knowledge:
1) The stereo set was made almost entirely from the stereo mixdown
tapes made by Smith, Emerick, and others between 1962-1970. In a few
cases, the stereo mixes were made at a later time, but still on analog
in the 60s-70s. The sequenced digital masters are new: as noted, a few
unissued 60s-era stereo mixes were inserted into the sequence, and a
small number of songs were subjected to error correction in ProTools
(example: a duff guitar note in the last verse of Day Tripper. This
correction was made by cloning an earlier protion of the stereo master
and inserting it over the bad spot.) And in one case (Love Me Do), the
mono master was unusable and it was remastered from vinyl.

2) The mono set was likewise made from the Smith-Emerick etc mono
masters made in 1962-70. A few previously unissued mono mixes were
included.

EMI was under great pressure from Beatles collectors to do this right,
using THE best tapes, and by and large, they did.


Here we go again... But aren't the original studio masters "THE best tapes"?
Or are people worried that a remix from scratch will not represent "original
intent"?

Regardless... thank you.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> Or are people worried that a remix from scratch will not represent "original
> intent"?

Correct. It is important to many Beatles fans that these songs not be
reinterpreted in the process of a remix. There is no way to duplicate
precisely what was done in the original mixes.


--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[[email protected]]

On Oct 21, 12:59*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge:
> 1) The stereo set was made almost entirely from the stereo mixdown
> tapes made by Smith, Emerick, and others between 1962-1970. In a few
> cases, the stereo mixes were made at a later time, but still on analog
> in the 60s-70s. The sequenced digital masters are new: as noted, a few
> unissued 60s-era stereo mixes were inserted into the sequence, and a
> small number of songs were subjected to error correction in ProTools
> (example: a duff guitar note in the last verse of Day Tripper. This
> correction was made by cloning an earlier protion of the stereo master
> and inserting it over the bad spot.) And in one case (Love Me Do), the
> mono master was unusable and it was remastered from vinyl.
>
> 2) The mono set was likewise made from the Smith-Emerick etc mono
> masters made in 1962-70. A few previously unissued mono mixes were
> included.
>
> EMI was under great pressure from Beatles collectors to do this right,
> using THE best tapes, and by and large, they did.
>
> Here we go again... But aren't the original studio masters "THE best tapes"?
> Or are people worried that a remix from scratch will not represent "original
> intent"?
>
> Regardless... thank you.

The best stereo and mono mixes from the 1962-70 era, excluding a
couple that were first remixed for stereo in the 70s. First generation
mixes, not to be confused with first generation mults.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Or are people worried that a remix from scratch will not represent
>> "original intent"?

> Correct. It is important to many Beatles fans that these songs not be
> reinterpreted in the process of a remix. There is no way to duplicate
> precisely what was done in the original mixes.

Then that pretty much clarifies it all. Thank you.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Wecan do it wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message
>
> However, someone still needs to explain the following:
>> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
>> necessary?
>
>
> No baking of John Lennon's corpse was required either, because
> neither was used in remastering the Beatles Albums.
>
>


Zombie Lennon says: All you need is BRAAAAAAAAINSSSSS....

--
Les Cargill

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> I'm not confusing anything... the recording industry is. Unless you're
> referring to the original session tapes, the term "master" should not
> be used without some other noun or qualifier.


Sort of, like, I'm rightand everybody else is wrong then ?

geoff

[Geoff]

Wecan do it wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message ...
>>> The same people said something different in their interview
>>> for SOS
>>> from which it is quite clear that what you call the cutting
>>> masters
>>> were used for the current crop of remasters.
>>
>> Assuming that's correct... Whey did they spend so much time
>> on these tapes?
>> The amount of time they took -- and the detailed effort they
>> seemed to
>> expend -- seems more consistent with remixing the original
>> studio tapes.
>
> We know how long it may have taken them, not how much time
> they spent working on the project. It is possible that the
> extended schedule included lots of legal and logistical
> problems too.

Yes we do. SOS article clearl2y stated that in general anbout half a day per
song. Presumably with exceptions.

geoff

[Geoff]

hank alrich wrote:
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>> Or are people worried that a remix from scratch will not represent
>> "original intent"?
>
> Correct. It is important to many Beatles fans that these songs not be
> reinterpreted in the process of a remix. There is no way to duplicate
> precisely what was done in the original mixes.

But something could be done 'sympathetically', maximising the capabilities
of current technology.


Successfully, like 'Naked' was.


geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I'm not confusing anything... the recording industry is. Unless
>> you're referring to the original session tapes, the term "master"
>> should not be used without some other noun or qualifier.

> Sort of, like, I'm rightand everybody else is wrong then?

Broadly speaking, yes...

But don't you agree that the "master" (as either a noun or adjective) is
applied a little too often and too freely, and if you're going to use it so
promiscuously, should it not be properly qualified to indicate the point in
the chain?

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> Or are people worried that a remix from scratch will not represent
>>> "original intent"?

>> Correct. It is important to many Beatles fans that these songs not be
>> reinterpreted in the process of a remix. There is no way to duplicate
>> precisely what was done in the original mixes.

> But something could be done 'sympathetically', maximising the capabilities
> of current technology.

The possibility of future 5.1 mixes was mentioned in the S+V article.

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> Or are people worried that a remix from scratch will not represent
>>>> "original intent"?
>
>>> Correct. It is important to many Beatles fans that these songs not
>>> be reinterpreted in the process of a remix. There is no way to
>>> duplicate precisely what was done in the original mixes.
>
>> But something could be done 'sympathetically', maximising the
>> capabilities of current technology.
>
> The possibility of future 5.1 mixes was mentioned in the S+V article.

I was still thinking in the stereo domain. I can't afford any more sets of
20Hz to 20KHz speakers ;-(


geoff

[Wecan do it]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Here we go again... But aren't the original studio masters
> "THE best tapes"?
> Or are people worried that a remix from scratch will not
> represent "original
> intent"?
>
> Regardless... thank you.

Dear William:

You just dont get the process William.

There is no scratch.

Scratch was added on to destructively and can not be taken
apart any more than an egg can be unscrambled. Maybe if you
read some of the many books about how the recordings were made
you would understand this.

If scratch was not gone after the first day something was
added to it, the something added to it never existed apart
from scratch other than in the air in the room. This can not
be disassembled and remixed.

peace
dawg

[Wecan do it]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> Wecan do it wrote:
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>> However, someone still needs to explain the following:
>>> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
>>> necessary?
>>
>>
>> No baking of John Lennon's corpse was required either,
>> because neither was used in remastering the Beatles Albums.
>
>
> Zombie Lennon says: All you need is BRAAAAAAAAINSSSSS....
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Bass Players.......sheesh!

peace
dawg

[Arkansan Raider]

Wecan do it wrote:
> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wecan do it wrote:
>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>> However, someone still needs to explain the following:
>>>> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
>>>> necessary?
>>>
>>> No baking of John Lennon's corpse was required either,
>>> because neither was used in remastering the Beatles Albums.
>>
>> Zombie Lennon says: All you need is BRAAAAAAAAINSSSSS....
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Bass Players.......sheesh!
>
> peace
> dawg
>
>

I thought it was funny. But I'm a bass *singer* .

<g>

---Jeff

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Wecan do it wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Here we go again... But aren't the original studio masters
>> "THE best tapes"?
>> Or are people worried that a remix from scratch will not
>> represent "original
>> intent"?
>>
>> Regardless... thank you.
>
> Dear William:
>
> You just dont get the process William.
>
> There is no scratch.
>
> Scratch was added on to destructively and can not be taken
> apart any more than an egg can be unscrambled. Maybe if you
> read some of the many books about how the recordings were made
> you would understand this.
>

Actually that is not entirely true. Many of the Beatles 4 track
recording used all four tracks on one tape then did a mix of these to
one or two tracks of a NEW tape to which more instruments were
overdubbed. (some even repeated this process).

With digital technology it is no possible to 'fly in' and sync the 4
tracks from the first tape to mix with the overdubbed tracks on the
second tape rather than having to use the bounced/mixed tracks on the
second tape.

Cheers

Ian

[William Sommerwerck]

> Actually that is not entirely true. Many of the Beatles 4 track
> recording used all four tracks on one tape then did a mix of these to
> one or two tracks of a NEW tape to which more instruments were
> overdubbed. (some even repeated this process).

> With digital technology it is no possible to 'fly in' and sync the 4
> tracks from the first tape to mix with the overdubbed tracks on the
> second tape rather than having to use the bounced/mixed tracks on the
> second tape.

Interesting.

I assume you meant "it is now possible", not "it is not possible".

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> >> I'm not confusing anything... the recording industry is. Unless
> >> you're referring to the original session tapes, the term "master"
> >> should not be used without some other noun or qualifier.
>
> > Sort of, like, I'm rightand everybody else is wrong then?
>
> Broadly speaking, yes...
>
> But don't you agree that the "master" (as either a noun or adjective) is
> applied a little too often and too freely, and if you're going to use it so
> promiscuously, should it not be properly qualified to indicate the point in
> the chain?

Since everybody working in the control room knows what they're talking
about, no, I don't think they need to adhere to your concept of how
jargon should be used within a particular profession, one of which you
have little direct experience.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[William Sommerwerck]

>>>> I'm not confusing anything... the recording industry is. Unless
>>>> you're referring to the original session tapes, the term "master"
>>>> should not be used without some other noun or qualifier.

>>> Sort of, like, I'm right and everybody else is wrong then?

>> Broadly speaking, yes...

>> But don't you agree that the "master" (as either a noun or adjective) is
>> applied a little too often and too freely, and if you're going to use it
so
>> promiscuously, should it not be properly qualified to indicate the point
in
>> the chain?

> Since everybody working in the control room knows what they're talking
> about, no, I don't think they need to adhere to your concept of how
> jargon should be used within a particular profession, one of which you
> have little direct experience.

Okay... That's not unreasonable...

But how about when that jargon spills over to the ignorant public? As I've
pointed out multiple times, I'm not the only person confused about "what's
what".

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Actually that is not entirely true. Many of the Beatles 4 track
>> recording used all four tracks on one tape then did a mix of these to
>> one or two tracks of a NEW tape to which more instruments were
>> overdubbed. (some even repeated this process).
>
>> With digital technology it is no possible to 'fly in' and sync the 4
>> tracks from the first tape to mix with the overdubbed tracks on the
>> second tape rather than having to use the bounced/mixed tracks on the
>> second tape.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I assume you meant "it is now possible", not "it is not possible".
>
>


Yup, typo. I also meant to mention there was a programme on Radio 2 a
few weeks ago about other things they are trying on the Beatles back
catalogue at Abbey Road. They gave an example where by digital
processing they are trying to separate instruments from within a track.
They played the rhythm intro to 'Tax Man' - bass, rhythm guitar and
drums and then played the separate parts I did not find it particularly
impressive because the track contains reverb (possibly natural) so on
the drums only example you can hear the reverb tails from the guitar.

Cheers

Ian

[William Sommerwerck]

> Yup, typo. I also meant to mention there was a programme on Radio 2 a
> few weeks ago about other things they are trying on the Beatles back
> catalogue at Abbey Road. They gave an example where by digital
> processing they are trying to separate instruments from within a track.
> They played the rhythm intro to 'Tax Man' - bass, rhythm guitar and
> drums and then played the separate parts I did not find it particularly
> impressive because the track contains reverb (possibly natural) so on
> the drums only example you can hear the reverb tails from the guitar.

But that might be fixable with deconvolution.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Yup, typo. I also meant to mention there was a programme on Radio 2 a
>> few weeks ago about other things they are trying on the Beatles back
>> catalogue at Abbey Road. They gave an example where by digital
>> processing they are trying to separate instruments from within a track.
>> They played the rhythm intro to 'Tax Man' - bass, rhythm guitar and
>> drums and then played the separate parts I did not find it particularly
>> impressive because the track contains reverb (possibly natural) so on
>> the drums only example you can hear the reverb tails from the guitar.
>
> But that might be fixable with deconvolution.
>
>


Pass


Ian

[Wecan do it]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message > Yup,
typo. I also meant to mention there was a programme on Radio 2
a
> few weeks ago about other things they are trying on the
> Beatles back catalogue at Abbey Road. They gave an example
> where by digital processing they are trying to separate
> instruments from within a track. They played the rhythm
> intro to 'Tax Man' - bass, rhythm guitar and drums and then
> played the separate parts I did not find it particularly
> impressive because the track contains reverb (possibly
> natural) so on the drums only example you can hear the
> reverb tails from the guitar.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ian

Surely an offering of the Beatles music re-created this-a-way
would not be called "remastering". It would qualify for a
name like remixed.

peace
dawg

[[email protected]]

On Oct 22, 2:25*pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> > Actually that is not entirely true. Many of the Beatles 4 track
> > recording used all four tracks on one tape then did a mix of these to
> > one or two tracks of a NEW tape to which more instruments were
> > overdubbed. (some even repeated this process).
> > With digital technology it is no possible to 'fly in' and sync the 4
> > tracks from the first tape to mix with the overdubbed tracks on the
> > second tape rather than having to use the bounced/mixed tracks on the
> > second tape.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I assume you meant "it is now possible", not "it is not possible".

Yes, that's how Yellow Submarine Songtrack and Love were done (as well
as a few cuts on Anthology). I did it myself on songs I recorded by
the same process in the early 1970s. Speed/pitch inconsistencies made
it impossible to synch the tapes for many years, but new digital
workstations now make it possible.

EMI indicates that the next round of Beatles releases, in a few years,
will be remixed from the original multitracks. They will not replace
the historical Beatles canon; they will simply co-exist with it.

Fans clamored for the Beatles canon, made from the original stereo and
mono mixdown tapes, with today's technology and more reverent
packaging, and EMI basically got it right. Despite the near-perfection
of the sound, some fans were disappointed in the sonics of both sets,
having been spoiled a bit by the remixed tracks from Anthology, Yellow
Submarine Songtrack and Love, so EMI hopes to meet that new demand in
the next few years.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Wecan do it wrote:
> "Ian Bell" > wrote in message > Yup,
> typo. I also meant to mention there was a programme on Radio 2
> a
>> few weeks ago about other things they are trying on the
>> Beatles back catalogue at Abbey Road. They gave an example
>> where by digital processing they are trying to separate
>> instruments from within a track. They played the rhythm
>> intro to 'Tax Man' - bass, rhythm guitar and drums and then
>> played the separate parts I did not find it particularly
>> impressive because the track contains reverb (possibly
>> natural) so on the drums only example you can hear the
>> reverb tails from the guitar.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ian
>
> Surely an offering of the Beatles music re-created this-a-way
> would not be called "remastering". It would qualify for a
> name like remixed.
>
> peace
> dawg
>
>


Correct.

Cheers

ian

[William Sommerwerck]

EMI indicates that the next round of Beatles releases, in a few years,
will be remixed from the original multitracks. They will not replace
the historical Beatles canon; they will simply co-exist with it.

Fans clamored for the Beatles canon, made from the original stereo and
mono mixdown tapes, with today's technology and more reverent
packaging, and EMI basically got it right. Despite the near-perfection
of the sound, some fans were disappointed in the sonics of both sets,
having been spoiled a bit by the remixed tracks from Anthology, Yellow
Submarine Songtrack and Love, so EMI hopes to meet that new demand in
the next few years.


Triple-dipping, eh?

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> EMI indicates that the next round of Beatles releases, in a few years,
> will be remixed from the original multitracks. They will not replace
> the historical Beatles canon; they will simply co-exist with it.
>
> Fans clamored for the Beatles canon, made from the original stereo and
> mono mixdown tapes, with today's technology and more reverent
> packaging, and EMI basically got it right. Despite the near-perfection
> of the sound, some fans were disappointed in the sonics of both sets,
> having been spoiled a bit by the remixed tracks from Anthology, Yellow
> Submarine Songtrack and Love, so EMI hopes to meet that new demand in
> the next few years.
>
>
> Triple-dipping, eh?
>
>


What I would love would be multi-track wavs of the originals so I can do
my own mixes and study the individual tracks in detail.

Cheers

Ian

[[email protected]]

On Oct 23, 5:55*pm, Ian Bell > wrote:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > EMI indicates that the next round of Beatles releases, in a few years,
> > will be remixed from the original multitracks. They will not replace
> > the historical Beatles canon; they will simply co-exist with it.
>
> > Fans clamored for the Beatles canon, made from the original stereo and
> > mono mixdown tapes, with today's technology and more reverent
> > packaging, and EMI basically got it right. Despite the near-perfection
> > of the sound, some fans were disappointed in the sonics of both sets,
> > having been spoiled a bit by the remixed tracks from Anthology, Yellow
> > Submarine Songtrack and Love, so EMI hopes to meet that new demand in
> > the next few years.
>
> > Triple-dipping, eh?
>
> What I would love would be multi-track wavs of the originals so I can do
> my own mixes and study the individual tracks in detail.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I presume you're aware that the mults of 4 songs from Sgt. Pepper
leaked out last year? I think it was Sgt Pepper, With A Little Help,
She's Leaving Home and A Day In The Life. You can find them on YouTube
and torrent sites.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was necessary?

> Now, I've never heard two-channel tapes called multitrack recordings.
> (This usage has carried over to SACDs. Surround SACDs are called
> "multi-ch", even though regular stereo recordings are, by numerical
> definition, multi-ch.) The implication is the original studio tapes
> were used.

3 track tape machines did exist at the time of the recording. Also - in the
context of a mono production - a 2 track machine is a multitrack machine.

> And then S+V asks "So all of the music we're hearing is from the
> original tapes?", and the answer is "Yes". I'm sorry -- I don't care
> what industry usage is -- how can what is at least a
> second-generation dub be an "original" tape?

A journalist has been involved.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Wecan do it wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message

> However, someone still needs to explain the following:

>> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
>> necessary?

BASF tape for instance does not to the best of my knowledge require baking.
EMI tapes, a not improbable guess, may have been similarly formulated.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

> > However, someone still needs to explain the following:
>
> >> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
> >> necessary?
>
> BASF tape for instance does not to the best of my knowledge require
baking.
> EMI tapes, a not improbable guess, may have been similarly formulated.

It's not an issue of "baking", it's that he say "original multitrack
tapes" -- which are presumably the session tapes, not the mixdowns used to
cut the lacquer.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Oct 23, 5:55 pm, Ian Bell > wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> EMI indicates that the next round of Beatles releases, in a few years,
>>> will be remixed from the original multitracks. They will not replace
>>> the historical Beatles canon; they will simply co-exist with it.
>>> Fans clamored for the Beatles canon, made from the original stereo and
>>> mono mixdown tapes, with today's technology and more reverent
>>> packaging, and EMI basically got it right. Despite the near-perfection
>>> of the sound, some fans were disappointed in the sonics of both sets,
>>> having been spoiled a bit by the remixed tracks from Anthology, Yellow
>>> Submarine Songtrack and Love, so EMI hopes to meet that new demand in
>>> the next few years.
>>> Triple-dipping, eh?
>> What I would love would be multi-track wavs of the originals so I can do
>> my own mixes and study the individual tracks in detail.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ian- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I presume you're aware that the mults of 4 songs from Sgt. Pepper
> leaked out last year? I think it was Sgt Pepper, With A Little Help,
> She's Leaving Home and A Day In The Life. You can find them on YouTube
> and torrent sites.


No I was not aware of that, thanks.

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Wecan do it wrote:
>
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>> message
>
>> However, someone still needs to explain the following:
>
>>> S+V: No baking of the original multitrack tapes was
>>> necessary?
>
> BASF tape for instance does not to the best of my knowledge require baking.
> EMI tapes, a not improbable guess, may have been similarly formulated.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
>
>


The only pro tapes that need baking are ones from the 70s when they
changed over from whale oil to a man made lubricant. The first attempt
did and still does cause lots of problems but later they got it right.

Cheers

Ian

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ian Bell wrote:

> The only pro tapes that need baking are ones from the 70s when they
> changed over from whale oil to a man made lubricant. The first attempt
> did and still does cause lots of problems but later they got it right.

Interesting in as much as all previous information is that it was about the
binder being hygroscopic.

> Ian

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Ian Bell wrote:
>
>> The only pro tapes that need baking are ones from the 70s when they
>> changed over from whale oil to a man made lubricant. The first attempt
>> did and still does cause lots of problems but later they got it right.
>
> Interesting in as much as all previous information is that it was about the
> binder being hygroscopic.
>

Well perhaps the whale oil was used to make the binder - what I do know
is that it occurred at the time whale oil ceased to be used in the
manufacture of tape and its replacement caused the sticky shedding
syndrome until a better replacement was found.

Cheers

Ian

>> Ian
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
>

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Ian Bell wrote:
>
>> The only pro tapes that need baking are ones from the 70s when they
>> changed over from whale oil to a man made lubricant. The first attempt
>> did and still does cause lots of problems but later they got it right.
>
>Interesting in as much as all previous information is that it was about the
>binder being hygroscopic.

A lot of things happened. But what we do know is that the urethane binder
broke down and became hygroscopic, because the urethanes were not properly
stabilized.

There was a change to backcoating that happened at about the same time,
along with the change from whale oil lubricants, and the change to different
oxide formulations for higher output, so it's hard to really straighten
out all the factors that caused the poor stability.

However, it happened with all of the new generation mastering tapes from
Ampex, and most of them from 3M and Capitol Audiotape. However, Ampex
kept making the older HOLN types until they finally shut down.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Ian Bell > wrote:
>Peter Larsen wrote:
>> Ian Bell wrote:
>>
>>> The only pro tapes that need baking are ones from the 70s when they
>>> changed over from whale oil to a man made lubricant. The first attempt
>>> did and still does cause lots of problems but later they got it right.
>>
>> Interesting in as much as all previous information is that it was about the
>> binder being hygroscopic.
>
>Well perhaps the whale oil was used to make the binder - what I do know
>is that it occurred at the time whale oil ceased to be used in the
>manufacture of tape and its replacement caused the sticky shedding
>syndrome until a better replacement was found.

This was ONLY for the new generation mastering tapes. Ampex went to
petroleum lubes on 641 without any stability issues.

On the other hand, Maxell never did stop using whale oil until they
finally discontinued UD in the early 2000s.
--scott

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

[david correia]

In article >,
Ian Bell > wrote:

> The only pro tapes that need baking are ones from the 70s when they
> changed over from whale oil to a man made lubricant. The first attempt
> did and still does cause lots of problems but later they got it right.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ian



How I wish this were true ;>





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Geoff]

Ian Bell wrote:

>
>
> What I would love would be multi-track wavs of the originals so I can
> do my own mixes and study the individual tracks in detail.

4 are 'out there'. Not hard to find them.


geoff

[fredbloggstwo]

Snip in parts


I remember reading an
> article by George Martin about recording. His idea of how to record a
> pop drum set was with one omni. It took me years to come around to
> understanding why. People who came up after the 70s seem not to
> understand the mind set at all. Sessions were performances. It was
> only during the Beatles era that multitrack- real multitrack became
> possible.


I think you will find that George Martin was not that technical and relied
on the skills of Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick for that part - mainly
Norman on the early albums. Norman was an advocate of a simpler way of
recording and using the room acoustics to capture a performance as close to
a live one as he could. Geoff introduced multi-micing as a way of
experimenting to get a different sound, particularly on drums.

I think that these guys were also getting on a bit when they decided to
write their recollections so they have to take with a very large pinch on
salt.

Norman's book is a good guide to his approach, although again, he was in his
80's when recalling these things and he admits his memory was not all he
would like.

Mike

[Steven Sullivan]

> wrote:

> Despite the near-perfection
> of the sound, some fans were disappointed in the sonics of both sets,
> having been spoiled a bit by the remixed tracks from Anthology, Yellow
> Submarine Songtrack and Love, so EMI hopes to meet that new demand in
> the next few years.

I'd say that rather than pristine new remixes from original multitracks,
more often they're just pining for the format-based distortion
that, for them, euphonically sweetens the LP versions.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine