Sgt. Pepper in Surround Sound-Could It Happen?

[Catdaddy]

EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
sometime in the future. I gather to guess that it would be similar to
the way the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds surround DVD-A was produced.

Just wondering...

[Don Cooper]

Catdaddy wrote:

> EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
> work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
> little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
> that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
> sometime in the future. I gather to guess that it would be similar to
> the way the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds surround DVD-A was produced.
>
> Just wondering...


This group is a good one in which to ask, from a technical standpoint.
The Beatles newsgroup would be almost as good, in terms of knowledge
about past quad releases.

There was a recent post there about solo McCartney stuff, and how the
DVD-A was basically the same mix as the '70's quad release (with the low
end processed separately, I'd imagine).

You may be familiar with the "Beatles Recording Sessions" books.
Border's book stores tend to have tons of the paperback version for
$7.99. That may help in understanding the tracks that were used.

I know there was some bouncing done in those days, which may negate the
ability to separate some of the tracks.

The "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" had some nice mixes, and some of that
material was from the optical soundtrack of the film.

I own the "Pet Sounds" DVD-A, and have yet to hear it, since I don't
have the equipment yet. I bought a bunch of releases that I knew I'd
want, figuring that they might go out of print.

Many others will comment here, I'd guess. I look forward to their
responses. Great question!

[Don Cooper]

Catdaddy wrote:

> EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
> work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
> little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
> that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
> sometime in the future. I gather to guess that it would be similar to
> the way the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds surround DVD-A was produced.
>
> Just wondering...


This group is a good one in which to ask, from a technical standpoint.
The Beatles newsgroup would be almost as good, in terms of knowledge
about past quad releases.

There was a recent post there about solo McCartney stuff, and how the
DVD-A was basically the same mix as the '70's quad release (with the low
end processed separately, I'd imagine).

You may be familiar with the "Beatles Recording Sessions" books.
Border's book stores tend to have tons of the paperback version for
$7.99. That may help in understanding the tracks that were used.

I know there was some bouncing done in those days, which may negate the
ability to separate some of the tracks.

The "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" had some nice mixes, and some of that
material was from the optical soundtrack of the film.

I own the "Pet Sounds" DVD-A, and have yet to hear it, since I don't
have the equipment yet. I bought a bunch of releases that I knew I'd
want, figuring that they might go out of print.

Many others will comment here, I'd guess. I look forward to their
responses. Great question!

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:52:39 -0400, Don Cooper wrote
(in article >):

>
>
> Catdaddy wrote:
>
>> EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
>> work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
>> little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
>> that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
>> sometime in the future. I gather to guess that it would be similar to
>> the way the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds surround DVD-A was produced.
>>
>> Just wondering...
>
>
> This group is a good one in which to ask, from a technical standpoint.
> The Beatles newsgroup would be almost as good, in terms of knowledge
> about past quad releases.
>
> There was a recent post there about solo McCartney stuff, and how the
> DVD-A was basically the same mix as the '70's quad release (with the low
> end processed separately, I'd imagine).
>
> You may be familiar with the "Beatles Recording Sessions" books.
> Border's book stores tend to have tons of the paperback version for
> $7.99. That may help in understanding the tracks that were used.
>
> I know there was some bouncing done in those days, which may negate the
> ability to separate some of the tracks.
>
> The "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" had some nice mixes, and some of that
> material was from the optical soundtrack of the film.
>
> I own the "Pet Sounds" DVD-A, and have yet to hear it, since I don't
> have the equipment yet. I bought a bunch of releases that I knew I'd
> want, figuring that they might go out of print.
>
> Many others will comment here, I'd guess. I look forward to their
> responses. Great question!

Sounds to me like another cheap way for record companies to keep milking the
public.

I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of classic
movies like Gone With The Wind.


Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:52:39 -0400, Don Cooper wrote
(in article >):

>
>
> Catdaddy wrote:
>
>> EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
>> work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
>> little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
>> that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
>> sometime in the future. I gather to guess that it would be similar to
>> the way the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds surround DVD-A was produced.
>>
>> Just wondering...
>
>
> This group is a good one in which to ask, from a technical standpoint.
> The Beatles newsgroup would be almost as good, in terms of knowledge
> about past quad releases.
>
> There was a recent post there about solo McCartney stuff, and how the
> DVD-A was basically the same mix as the '70's quad release (with the low
> end processed separately, I'd imagine).
>
> You may be familiar with the "Beatles Recording Sessions" books.
> Border's book stores tend to have tons of the paperback version for
> $7.99. That may help in understanding the tracks that were used.
>
> I know there was some bouncing done in those days, which may negate the
> ability to separate some of the tracks.
>
> The "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" had some nice mixes, and some of that
> material was from the optical soundtrack of the film.
>
> I own the "Pet Sounds" DVD-A, and have yet to hear it, since I don't
> have the equipment yet. I bought a bunch of releases that I knew I'd
> want, figuring that they might go out of print.
>
> Many others will comment here, I'd guess. I look forward to their
> responses. Great question!

Sounds to me like another cheap way for record companies to keep milking the
public.

I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of classic
movies like Gone With The Wind.


Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Catdaddy <> wrote:
>EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
>work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
>little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
>that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
>sometime in the future. I gather to guess that it would be similar to
>the way the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds surround DVD-A was produced.

Sure, but the thing was never originally tracked with surround in mind.
I think that the best that would be possible would be something like the
abominable 5.1 remix of Yellow Submarine.

But yes, there are plenty of intermediate bounces available and you could
take all the layers apart and synch them up on one big multitrack mix. It
could be done. The question is whether it would be good if it were done or
not.
--scott
(who thinks Pet Sounds is better in mono too)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Catdaddy <> wrote:
>EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
>work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
>little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
>that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
>sometime in the future. I gather to guess that it would be similar to
>the way the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds surround DVD-A was produced.

Sure, but the thing was never originally tracked with surround in mind.
I think that the best that would be possible would be something like the
abominable 5.1 remix of Yellow Submarine.

But yes, there are plenty of intermediate bounces available and you could
take all the layers apart and synch them up on one big multitrack mix. It
could be done. The question is whether it would be good if it were done or
not.
--scott
(who thinks Pet Sounds is better in mono too)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Cooper]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Sure, but the thing was never originally tracked with surround in mind.
> I think that the best that would be possible would be something like the
> abominable 5.1 remix of Yellow Submarine.


Many people hate the Yellow Sub release. I like it because I feel that
it has the best mix of "All You Need IS Love".



> But yes, there are plenty of intermediate bounces available and you could
> take all the layers apart and synch them up on one big multitrack mix. It
> could be done. The question is whether it would be good if it were done or
> not.


I agree. It would totally change it. I never heard the quad, so I don't
know how true to the original that is.


> --scott
> (who thinks Pet Sounds is better in mono too)


You got a point there. Many would say the same about Sgt. Pepper. That
was actually a whole different mix than the stereo. Apparently done
first, and with their approval.

[Don Cooper]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Sure, but the thing was never originally tracked with surround in mind.
> I think that the best that would be possible would be something like the
> abominable 5.1 remix of Yellow Submarine.


Many people hate the Yellow Sub release. I like it because I feel that
it has the best mix of "All You Need IS Love".



> But yes, there are plenty of intermediate bounces available and you could
> take all the layers apart and synch them up on one big multitrack mix. It
> could be done. The question is whether it would be good if it were done or
> not.


I agree. It would totally change it. I never heard the quad, so I don't
know how true to the original that is.


> --scott
> (who thinks Pet Sounds is better in mono too)


You got a point there. Many would say the same about Sgt. Pepper. That
was actually a whole different mix than the stereo. Apparently done
first, and with their approval.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Cooper > wrote:
>
>I agree. It would totally change it. I never heard the quad, so I don't
>know how true to the original that is.

I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. A good 5.1
system is very capable of reproducing the quad stuff, and there are a lot
of those mixes in the vaults.

Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
lot of that material start showing up.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Cooper > wrote:
>
>I agree. It would totally change it. I never heard the quad, so I don't
>know how true to the original that is.

I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. A good 5.1
system is very capable of reproducing the quad stuff, and there are a lot
of those mixes in the vaults.

Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
lot of that material start showing up.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Cooper]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. A good 5.1
> system is very capable of reproducing the quad stuff, and there are a lot
> of those mixes in the vaults.
>
> Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
> actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> lot of that material start showing up.


I remember hearing Santana's "Abraxas", with Carlos' guitar flying
around the room.

On Carly Simon's "You're So Vain", Jagger had his own speaker, for
vocals, and his guitar solo.

[Don Cooper]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. A good 5.1
> system is very capable of reproducing the quad stuff, and there are a lot
> of those mixes in the vaults.
>
> Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
> actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> lot of that material start showing up.


I remember hearing Santana's "Abraxas", with Carlos' guitar flying
around the room.

On Carly Simon's "You're So Vain", Jagger had his own speaker, for
vocals, and his guitar solo.

[EggHd]

<< I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of classic

movies like Gone With The Wind. >>

Turner already colorized many old B&W movies.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of classic

movies like Gone With The Wind. >>

Turner already colorized many old B&W movies.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of classic

movies like Gone With The Wind. >>

Turner already colorized many old B&W movies.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[what , me worry??]

"Don Cooper" > ...
>
> I know there was some bouncing done in those days, which may negate the
> ability to separate some of the tracks.


They've kept all the session tapes and can separate to some extent. There
might be bass and drums on same tracks-but the overdubs excists as
individual tracks.

> The "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" had some nice mixes, and some of that
> material was from the optical soundtrack of the film.

In Eleanor Rigby Paul's vocal suffers from " bad timing" on the new 5-1
mix.
String quartet was recorded on 4 tracks. A mixdown was made to another 4
track machine and voacls were added.

In remix DVD they used the original recording of the String quartet (on tape
1) and added vocals from track 3 and 4 f(tape 2)
Giving 2 different tapes-it meant a timing problem(within 1-2 seconds or so)
They had to edit(in Protools)the vocal track and fit them into the string
quartet.
I think the EMI techs did a bad job --McCartney was edited "off beat".
Quite audible!

[what , me worry??]

"Don Cooper" > ...
>
> I know there was some bouncing done in those days, which may negate the
> ability to separate some of the tracks.


They've kept all the session tapes and can separate to some extent. There
might be bass and drums on same tracks-but the overdubs excists as
individual tracks.

> The "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" had some nice mixes, and some of that
> material was from the optical soundtrack of the film.

In Eleanor Rigby Paul's vocal suffers from " bad timing" on the new 5-1
mix.
String quartet was recorded on 4 tracks. A mixdown was made to another 4
track machine and voacls were added.

In remix DVD they used the original recording of the String quartet (on tape
1) and added vocals from track 3 and 4 f(tape 2)
Giving 2 different tapes-it meant a timing problem(within 1-2 seconds or so)
They had to edit(in Protools)the vocal track and fit them into the string
quartet.
I think the EMI techs did a bad job --McCartney was edited "off beat".
Quite audible!

[what , me worry??]

"Don Cooper" > ...
>
> I know there was some bouncing done in those days, which may negate the
> ability to separate some of the tracks.


They've kept all the session tapes and can separate to some extent. There
might be bass and drums on same tracks-but the overdubs excists as
individual tracks.

> The "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" had some nice mixes, and some of that
> material was from the optical soundtrack of the film.

In Eleanor Rigby Paul's vocal suffers from " bad timing" on the new 5-1
mix.
String quartet was recorded on 4 tracks. A mixdown was made to another 4
track machine and voacls were added.

In remix DVD they used the original recording of the String quartet (on tape
1) and added vocals from track 3 and 4 f(tape 2)
Giving 2 different tapes-it meant a timing problem(within 1-2 seconds or so)
They had to edit(in Protools)the vocal track and fit them into the string
quartet.
I think the EMI techs did a bad job --McCartney was edited "off beat".
Quite audible!

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>
> But yes, there are plenty of intermediate bounces available and you could
> take all the layers apart and synch them up on one big multitrack mix. It
> could be done. The question is whether it would be good if it were done
> or
> not.

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or
not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." - Jurassic Park

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>
> But yes, there are plenty of intermediate bounces available and you could
> take all the layers apart and synch them up on one big multitrack mix. It
> could be done. The question is whether it would be good if it were done
> or
> not.

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or
not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." - Jurassic Park

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>
> But yes, there are plenty of intermediate bounces available and you could
> take all the layers apart and synch them up on one big multitrack mix. It
> could be done. The question is whether it would be good if it were done
> or
> not.

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or
not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." - Jurassic Park

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Don Cooper > wrote:
>>
>>I agree. It would totally change it. I never heard the quad, so I don't
>>know how true to the original that is.
>
> I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. A good 5.1
> system is very capable of reproducing the quad stuff, and there are a lot
> of those mixes in the vaults.

Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
future". Maybe they're afraid it would inform the public that "this has been
done before and was a miserable failure".

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Don Cooper > wrote:
>>
>>I agree. It would totally change it. I never heard the quad, so I don't
>>know how true to the original that is.
>
> I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. A good 5.1
> system is very capable of reproducing the quad stuff, and there are a lot
> of those mixes in the vaults.

Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
future". Maybe they're afraid it would inform the public that "this has been
done before and was a miserable failure".

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Don Cooper > wrote:
>>
>>I agree. It would totally change it. I never heard the quad, so I don't
>>know how true to the original that is.
>
> I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. A good 5.1
> system is very capable of reproducing the quad stuff, and there are a lot
> of those mixes in the vaults.

Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
future". Maybe they're afraid it would inform the public that "this has been
done before and was a miserable failure".

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of
> classic
>
> movies like Gone With The Wind. >>
>
> Turner already colorized many old B&W movies.

I remember when they were afraid he was going to colorize the beginning of
"The Wizard of Oz".

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of
> classic
>
> movies like Gone With The Wind. >>
>
> Turner already colorized many old B&W movies.

I remember when they were afraid he was going to colorize the beginning of
"The Wizard of Oz".

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of
> classic
>
> movies like Gone With The Wind. >>
>
> Turner already colorized many old B&W movies.

I remember when they were afraid he was going to colorize the beginning of
"The Wizard of Oz".

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
> future". Maybe they're afraid it would inform the public that "this has been
> done before and was a miserable failure".


That's what kills me about some of the Beatles forums. They want
"remastered" this and "remixed" that, without even knowing what these
terms mean.

They would buy the next round of releases, but there aren't as many of
them, as say, J-Lo fans.

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
> future". Maybe they're afraid it would inform the public that "this has been
> done before and was a miserable failure".


That's what kills me about some of the Beatles forums. They want
"remastered" this and "remixed" that, without even knowing what these
terms mean.

They would buy the next round of releases, but there aren't as many of
them, as say, J-Lo fans.

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
> future". Maybe they're afraid it would inform the public that "this has been
> done before and was a miserable failure".


That's what kills me about some of the Beatles forums. They want
"remastered" this and "remixed" that, without even knowing what these
terms mean.

They would buy the next round of releases, but there aren't as many of
them, as say, J-Lo fans.

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> I remember when they were afraid he was going to colorize the beginning of
> "The Wizard of Oz".


Arghhhhhhh!

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> I remember when they were afraid he was going to colorize the beginning of
> "The Wizard of Oz".


Arghhhhhhh!

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> I remember when they were afraid he was going to colorize the beginning of
> "The Wizard of Oz".


Arghhhhhhh!

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Don Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:
>
>> I remember when they were afraid he was going to colorize the beginning
>> of
>> "The Wizard of Oz".
>
>
> Arghhhhhhh!

I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it
was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was
done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about
the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for
the "wow" factor.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Don Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:
>
>> I remember when they were afraid he was going to colorize the beginning
>> of
>> "The Wizard of Oz".
>
>
> Arghhhhhhh!

I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it
was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was
done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about
the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for
the "wow" factor.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Don Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:
>
>> I remember when they were afraid he was going to colorize the beginning
>> of
>> "The Wizard of Oz".
>
>
> Arghhhhhhh!

I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it
was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was
done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about
the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for
the "wow" factor.

[Catdaddy]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:33:30 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
> wrote:

>"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or
>not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." - Jurassic Park

I for one, would be interested to see how a surround mix would sound.
In the right hands, it might be a revelation. It's hard to say. At
the very least, it would be nice to get as close to first gereration
as possible for a stereo remix, or even a mono remix.

By the way, I have the Beach Boys Pet Sound surround title, and I have
a 5.1 system. I was underwhelmed. I thought the stereo was more of a
treat. Scott, I bet it would sound worlds better if they took those
newly multitracked elements and made a new mono mix.

[Catdaddy]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:33:30 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
> wrote:

>"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or
>not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." - Jurassic Park

I for one, would be interested to see how a surround mix would sound.
In the right hands, it might be a revelation. It's hard to say. At
the very least, it would be nice to get as close to first gereration
as possible for a stereo remix, or even a mono remix.

By the way, I have the Beach Boys Pet Sound surround title, and I have
a 5.1 system. I was underwhelmed. I thought the stereo was more of a
treat. Scott, I bet it would sound worlds better if they took those
newly multitracked elements and made a new mono mix.

[Catdaddy]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:33:30 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
> wrote:

>"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or
>not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." - Jurassic Park

I for one, would be interested to see how a surround mix would sound.
In the right hands, it might be a revelation. It's hard to say. At
the very least, it would be nice to get as close to first gereration
as possible for a stereo remix, or even a mono remix.

By the way, I have the Beach Boys Pet Sound surround title, and I have
a 5.1 system. I was underwhelmed. I thought the stereo was more of a
treat. Scott, I bet it would sound worlds better if they took those
newly multitracked elements and made a new mono mix.

[Mike Rivers]

In article <hG_4d.109152$D%.19208@attbi_s51> writes:

> > I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> > albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media.

> Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
> future".

I this case, it's about duping the public into buying "the pasture."


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article <hG_4d.109152$D%.19208@attbi_s51> writes:

> > I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> > albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media.

> Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
> future".

I this case, it's about duping the public into buying "the pasture."


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article <hG_4d.109152$D%.19208@attbi_s51> writes:

> > I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> > albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media.

> Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
> future".

I this case, it's about duping the public into buying "the pasture."


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Bob Olhsson]

<Catdaddy> wrote in message
...
> EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
> work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
> little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
> that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
> sometime in the future.

It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces
where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and
recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things were
so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a
minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more
editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals.

In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin
and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots
better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Bob Olhsson]

<Catdaddy> wrote in message
...
> EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
> work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
> little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
> that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
> sometime in the future.

It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces
where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and
recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things were
so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a
minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more
editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals.

In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin
and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots
better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Bob Olhsson]

<Catdaddy> wrote in message
...
> EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
> work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
> little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
> that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
> sometime in the future.

It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces
where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and
recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things were
so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a
minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more
editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals.

In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin
and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots
better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it
> was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was
> done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about
> the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for
> the "wow" factor.


Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.)

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it
> was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was
> done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about
> the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for
> the "wow" factor.


Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.)

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise it
> was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color was
> done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor (about
> the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely for
> the "wow" factor.


Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.)

[Don Cooper]

Bob Olhsson wrote:

> In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin
> and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots
> better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version.

Me too (both LP's). There has never been an official CD.

Of course, some clown made bootlegs. There are also bootlegs of the US
albums, cheesy reverb and all.

I have a British Mono SPLHCB LP that sounds excellent, and I bought a
mono in the '60's (in the US), because it was a dollar cheaper than the stereo!

[Don Cooper]

Bob Olhsson wrote:

> In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin
> and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots
> better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version.

Me too (both LP's). There has never been an official CD.

Of course, some clown made bootlegs. There are also bootlegs of the US
albums, cheesy reverb and all.

I have a British Mono SPLHCB LP that sounds excellent, and I bought a
mono in the '60's (in the US), because it was a dollar cheaper than the stereo!

[Don Cooper]

Bob Olhsson wrote:

> In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George Martin
> and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots
> better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version.

Me too (both LP's). There has never been an official CD.

Of course, some clown made bootlegs. There are also bootlegs of the US
albums, cheesy reverb and all.

I have a British Mono SPLHCB LP that sounds excellent, and I bought a
mono in the '60's (in the US), because it was a dollar cheaper than the stereo!

[gmc]

On 24 Sep 2004 18:04:15 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:
>
>In article <hG_4d.109152$D%.19208@attbi_s51> writes:
>
>> > I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
>> > albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media.
>
>> Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
>> future".
>
>I this case, it's about duping the public into buying "the pasture."
>

--------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^

Ha Ha! - very good! :-)

[gmc]

On 24 Sep 2004 18:04:15 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:
>
>In article <hG_4d.109152$D%.19208@attbi_s51> writes:
>
>> > I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
>> > albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media.
>
>> Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
>> future".
>
>I this case, it's about duping the public into buying "the pasture."
>

--------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^

Ha Ha! - very good! :-)

[gmc]

On 24 Sep 2004 18:04:15 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:
>
>In article <hG_4d.109152$D%.19208@attbi_s51> writes:
>
>> > I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
>> > albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media.
>
>> Remember it's about marketing and duping the public into buying "the
>> future".
>
>I this case, it's about duping the public into buying "the pasture."
>

--------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^

Ha Ha! - very good! :-)

[William Sommerwerck]

> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
> it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color
> was done on purpose to "wow" the audience.

It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow anyone.


> But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing)
> I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor.

It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes Kansas as
a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing.

The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but that's
not (apparently) the way the film was made.

There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think of
Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate
perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be practical
with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and
rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
> it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color
> was done on purpose to "wow" the audience.

It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow anyone.


> But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing)
> I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor.

It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes Kansas as
a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing.

The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but that's
not (apparently) the way the film was made.

There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think of
Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate
perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be practical
with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and
rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
> it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color
> was done on purpose to "wow" the audience.

It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow anyone.


> But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing)
> I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor.

It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes Kansas as
a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing.

The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but that's
not (apparently) the way the film was made.

There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think of
Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate
perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be practical
with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and
rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Don Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
>> it
>> was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color
>> was
>> done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor
>> (about
>> the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely
>> for
>> the "wow" factor.
>
>
> Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.)

Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first?

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Don Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
>> it
>> was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color
>> was
>> done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor
>> (about
>> the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely
>> for
>> the "wow" factor.
>
>
> Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.)

Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first?

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Don Cooper" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
>> it
>> was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to color
>> was
>> done on purpose to "wow" the audience. But it's such a huge metaphor
>> (about
>> the biggest I ever remember seeing) I can't believe it was done purely
>> for
>> the "wow" factor.
>
>
> Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.)

Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first?

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
>> it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to
>> color
>> was done on purpose to "wow" the audience.
>
> It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow
> anyone.
>

Maybe it was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor or one of
those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost sure I read that.

>
>> But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing)
>> I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor.
>
> It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes
> Kansas as
> a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing.
>

I had only read part of the book and really young kid and have no memory of
it whatsoever. Regardless it was a stunning metaphor to me visually.


> The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but
> that's
> not (apparently) the way the film was made.
>
> There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think
> of
> Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate
> perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be
> practical
> with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and
> rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc.
>

Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason. Thanks for
the info.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
>> it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to
>> color
>> was done on purpose to "wow" the audience.
>
> It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow
> anyone.
>

Maybe it was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor or one of
those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost sure I read that.

>
>> But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing)
>> I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor.
>
> It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes
> Kansas as
> a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing.
>

I had only read part of the book and really young kid and have no memory of
it whatsoever. Regardless it was a stunning metaphor to me visually.


> The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but
> that's
> not (apparently) the way the film was made.
>
> There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think
> of
> Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate
> perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be
> practical
> with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and
> rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc.
>

Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason. Thanks for
the info.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> I'd like to know to the backstory to the "Oz" thing. From what I surmise
>> it was the first big "color" movie so the change from black/white to
>> color
>> was done on purpose to "wow" the audience.
>
> It was not the first "big" color movie, and there was no intent to wow
> anyone.
>

Maybe it was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor or one of
those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost sure I read that.

>
>> But it's such a huge metaphor (about the biggest I ever remember seeing)
>> I can't believe it was done purely for the "wow" factor.
>
> It wasn't. Just read the first few pages of the novel. Baum describes
> Kansas as
> a gray, colorless world. The B&W mirrors Baum's writing.
>

I had only read part of the book and really young kid and have no memory of
it whatsoever. Regardless it was a stunning metaphor to me visually.


> The opening scenes were originally sepia. I prefer the B&W version, but
> that's
> not (apparently) the way the film was made.
>
> There were technical considerations for making the opening B&W. We think
> of
> Kansas as "flat and immense." Showing this requires (despite deliberate
> perspective compression) much greater depth of field than would be
> practical
> with Technicolor. Then consider the difficulty of filming the tornado and
> rear-projecting it in color. etc, etc, etc.
>

Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason. Thanks for
the info.

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> > Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.)
>
> Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first?


As a viewer, I'd say "wow" first, and "metaphor" after repeated
viewings. Not sure what they thought some 60 years ago, making it.

I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though.

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> > Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.)
>
> Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first?


As a viewer, I'd say "wow" first, and "metaphor" after repeated
viewings. Not sure what they thought some 60 years ago, making it.

I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though.

[Don Cooper]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:

> > Can it be both? (Wow and metaphor.)
>
> Sure. And I suspect that's it. I just wonder which decision came first?


As a viewer, I'd say "wow" first, and "metaphor" after repeated
viewings. Not sure what they thought some 60 years ago, making it.

I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though.

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:55:39 -0400, EggHd wrote
(in article >):

> << I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of
> classic
>
> movies like Gone With The Wind. >>
>
> Turner already colorized many old B&W movies.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

I know. That's not 3D though.

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:55:39 -0400, EggHd wrote
(in article >):

> << I can't wait til the film studios figure out how to do 3D remakes of
> classic
>
> movies like Gone With The Wind. >>
>
> Turner already colorized many old B&W movies.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

I know. That's not 3D though.

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

[Tommy B]

I remember the first CD releases of Beatles stuff.
It scared the **** out of me and I couldn't listen.
Anyway, I can play that stuff in my head, where I know it still sound good.
Tom

"Bob Olhsson" > wrote in message
...
> <Catdaddy> wrote in message
> ...
> > EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
> > work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
> > little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
> > that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
> > sometime in the future.
>
> It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces
> where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and
> recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things
were
> so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a
> minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more
> editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals.
>
> In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George
Martin
> and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots
> better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version.
>
> --
> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
> 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
>
>

[Tommy B]

I remember the first CD releases of Beatles stuff.
It scared the **** out of me and I couldn't listen.
Anyway, I can play that stuff in my head, where I know it still sound good.
Tom

"Bob Olhsson" > wrote in message
...
> <Catdaddy> wrote in message
> ...
> > EMI Records and Abbey Road Studios probably kept every scrap of the
> > work tapes used to produce Sgt. Pepper. Does anyone out there with a
> > little more knowledge on the production techniques used to produce
> > that record think that a surround sound version can be produced
> > sometime in the future.
>
> It would be very difficult because I'm told they did lots of live bounces
> where recorded tracks were mixed together with live performances and
> recorded back and forth between two 4-track machines. The reason things
were
> so compressed was so that they could keep the build up of tape hiss to a
> minimum. Pet Sounds, at least as far I understand, involved a lot more
> editing and a lot less overdubbing except for stacking the vocals.
>
> In many people's opinion, including mine and I also understand George
Martin
> and all of the group members, the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper were lots
> better. I have both LPs but have never seen a CD of the mono version.
>
> --
> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
> 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
>
>

[William Sommerwerck]

> Maybe it [Oz] was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor
> or one of those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost
> sure I read that.

No. Two-strip Technicolor was in use since the '20s, mostly for "inserts" in B&W
films ("Ben-Hur," "Phantom of the Opera"). Not many feature-length films in
two-strip Technicolor were made, "The Black Pirate" (silent) and "Mystery of the
Wax Museum" (sound) being exceptions.

The first commercial three-strip Technicolor film was Disney's "Flowers and
Trees" (1933?). The first feature-length three-strip Technicolor film was "Becky
Sharp" (1935).

Live-action three-strip Technicolor used a camera with three separate strips of
film -- red, green, blue -- running through it. Several of these films --
notably "The Adventures of Robin Hood," "Meet Me in St. Louis," and "Singin' in
the Rain" are available in DVD versions where the three original camera
negatives (rather than an interpositive or print) were individually scanned,
then electronically combined.

The result is "Technicolor to the tenth power." You have never, ever seen a
color movie like this. Your eyeballs will fall out.


> Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason.
> Thanks for the info.

You're welcome.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Maybe it [Oz] was the first in some "new" system (like Technicolor
> or one of those "o-rama-vision" or whatever things) but I'm almost
> sure I read that.

No. Two-strip Technicolor was in use since the '20s, mostly for "inserts" in B&W
films ("Ben-Hur," "Phantom of the Opera"). Not many feature-length films in
two-strip Technicolor were made, "The Black Pirate" (silent) and "Mystery of the
Wax Museum" (sound) being exceptions.

The first commercial three-strip Technicolor film was Disney's "Flowers and
Trees" (1933?). The first feature-length three-strip Technicolor film was "Becky
Sharp" (1935).

Live-action three-strip Technicolor used a camera with three separate strips of
film -- red, green, blue -- running through it. Several of these films --
notably "The Adventures of Robin Hood," "Meet Me in St. Louis," and "Singin' in
the Rain" are available in DVD versions where the three original camera
negatives (rather than an interpositive or print) were individually scanned,
then electronically combined.

The result is "Technicolor to the tenth power." You have never, ever seen a
color movie like this. Your eyeballs will fall out.


> Wow. Well, it worked out beautifully regardless of the reason.
> Thanks for the info.

You're welcome.

[R Krizman]

<< I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. >><BR><BR>

Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar.

Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. >><BR><BR>

Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar.

Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker.

-R

[Don Cooper]

R Krizman wrote:

> << I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. >><BR><BR>
>
> Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar.
>
> Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker.


Thank you. I will do that.

[Don Cooper]

R Krizman wrote:

> << I never did the "Dark Side Of The Moon" thing, though. >><BR><BR>
>
> Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar.
>
> Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker.


Thank you. I will do that.

[ScotFraser]

<< > Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar.
>
> Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker.>


<Thank you. I will do that. >>

And pre-roll a significant quantity of doobies, and get them nicely lined up on
the coffee table, before you start rolling the picture.



Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< > Sync the first heartbeat with the 3rd MGM lion roar.
>
> Try it some night when the only thing on is Celebrity Poker.>


<Thank you. I will do that. >>

And pre-roll a significant quantity of doobies, and get them nicely lined up on
the coffee table, before you start rolling the picture.



Scott Fraser

[Scott Dorsey]

starwars > wrote:
>|--scott
>| (who thinks Pet Sounds is better in mono too)
>
>And Sgt. Peppers sounds better in mono, too!
>
>Surrond Sound is too gimmicky (Quad).

It doesn't have to be. It's possible, if you play well, to use surround
sound to make recordings that have a more realistic sense of space, instead
of ping-ponging trash. Unfortunately, more realistic recordings don't seem
to be what the market wants.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

starwars > wrote:
>|--scott
>| (who thinks Pet Sounds is better in mono too)
>
>And Sgt. Peppers sounds better in mono, too!
>
>Surrond Sound is too gimmicky (Quad).

It doesn't have to be. It's possible, if you play well, to use surround
sound to make recordings that have a more realistic sense of space, instead
of ping-ponging trash. Unfortunately, more realistic recordings don't seem
to be what the market wants.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Greg Andrews]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>It's possible, if you play well, to use surround
>sound to make recordings that have a more realistic sense of space, instead
>of ping-ponging trash. Unfortunately, more realistic recordings don't seem
>to be what the market wants.
>

Bread and Circuses, Scott. Bread and Circuses.

-Greg
--
::::::::::::: Greg Andrews ::::: :::::::::::::
If Milli Vanilli fall in the woods, does someone else make a sound?
--

[Greg Andrews]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>It's possible, if you play well, to use surround
>sound to make recordings that have a more realistic sense of space, instead
>of ping-ponging trash. Unfortunately, more realistic recordings don't seem
>to be what the market wants.
>

Bread and Circuses, Scott. Bread and Circuses.

-Greg
--
::::::::::::: Greg Andrews ::::: :::::::::::::
If Milli Vanilli fall in the woods, does someone else make a sound?
--

[Rob Reedijk]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Don Cooper > wrote:
>>
>>I agree. It would totally change it. I never heard the quad, so I don't
>>know how true to the original that is.

> I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. A good 5.1
> system is very capable of reproducing the quad stuff, and there are a lot
> of those mixes in the vaults.

> Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
> actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> lot of that material start showing up.

Fun stuff can happen with the simple stereo mixes. I have a Sansui
quad amp with the SQ,QS decoders and there are a few songs like
Flying Saucer thing on Axis:Bold as Love and Whole Lotta Love
that sound phenomenal when you "decode" them to quad. Really anything
with moving pans in the mix sound very cool.

Rob R.

[Rob Reedijk]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Don Cooper > wrote:
>>
>>I agree. It would totally change it. I never heard the quad, so I don't
>>know how true to the original that is.

> I am surprised that the original quad mixes of a lot of those seventies
> albums aren't being made available for playback on 5.1 media. A good 5.1
> system is very capable of reproducing the quad stuff, and there are a lot
> of those mixes in the vaults.

> Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
> actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> lot of that material start showing up.

Fun stuff can happen with the simple stereo mixes. I have a Sansui
quad amp with the SQ,QS decoders and there are a few songs like
Flying Saucer thing on Axis:Bold as Love and Whole Lotta Love
that sound phenomenal when you "decode" them to quad. Really anything
with moving pans in the mix sound very cool.

Rob R.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
> actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> lot of that material start showing up.

Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo recordings did not
use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply miked. It was the introduction of
multi-tracking that encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
> actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> lot of that material start showing up.

Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo recordings did not
use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply miked. It was the introduction of
multi-tracking that encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.

[Paul Stamler]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> > Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> > exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> > instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> > days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
> > actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> > lot of that material start showing up.
>
> Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo recordings
did not
> use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply miked. It was the introduction
of
> multi-tracking that encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.

"Ping-Pong" stereo got named for a famous demonstration record in the
earliest days of stereo which featured a recording of, what else, a
ping-pong game. It was the first stereo I heard, and I must say it was
pretty impressive. (When the ball went off the table I distinctly heard
sounds outside the ambit of the speakers.) This would have been about 1958.

A lot of those early stereo records, before anybody but Les Paul and Pete
Seeger were multitracking, had very exaggerated stereo soundstaging, just so
the buyers would figure they were getting their money's worth. Musta been
hell to cut 'em.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> > Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> > exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> > instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> > days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects and
> > actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> > lot of that material start showing up.
>
> Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo recordings
did not
> use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply miked. It was the introduction
of
> multi-tracking that encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.

"Ping-Pong" stereo got named for a famous demonstration record in the
earliest days of stereo which featured a recording of, what else, a
ping-pong game. It was the first stereo I heard, and I must say it was
pretty impressive. (When the ball went off the table I distinctly heard
sounds outside the ambit of the speakers.) This would have been about 1958.

A lot of those early stereo records, before anybody but Les Paul and Pete
Seeger were multitracking, had very exaggerated stereo soundstaging, just so
the buyers would figure they were getting their money's worth. Musta been
hell to cut 'em.

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo
>> recordings did not use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply
>> miked. It was the introduction of multi-tracking that
>> encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.

> "Ping-Pong" stereo got named for a famous demonstration record in the
> earliest days of stereo which featured a recording of, what else, a
> ping-pong game. It was the first stereo I heard, and I must say it was
> pretty impressive. (When the ball went off the table I distinctly heard
> sounds outside the ambit of the speakers.) This would have been about 1958.

> A lot of those early stereo records, before anybody but Les Paul and Pete
> Seeger were multitracking, had very exaggerated stereo soundstaging, just
> so the buyers would figure they were getting their money's worth. Musta been
> hell to cut 'em.

You're confusing RCA and Enoch Light.

It was Light's Command label that popularized "ping-pong" recording, so that
people buying fruitwood consoles barely 4' wide would hear left/right effects.

At that time, stereo tape recorders were either two- or three-track. Recording
engineers (especially at RCA and Mercury) were aware of the need to create a
believable stereo image. As they could not multi-track, they had no choice but
to make "good" recordings.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo
>> recordings did not use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply
>> miked. It was the introduction of multi-tracking that
>> encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.

> "Ping-Pong" stereo got named for a famous demonstration record in the
> earliest days of stereo which featured a recording of, what else, a
> ping-pong game. It was the first stereo I heard, and I must say it was
> pretty impressive. (When the ball went off the table I distinctly heard
> sounds outside the ambit of the speakers.) This would have been about 1958.

> A lot of those early stereo records, before anybody but Les Paul and Pete
> Seeger were multitracking, had very exaggerated stereo soundstaging, just
> so the buyers would figure they were getting their money's worth. Musta been
> hell to cut 'em.

You're confusing RCA and Enoch Light.

It was Light's Command label that popularized "ping-pong" recording, so that
people buying fruitwood consoles barely 4' wide would hear left/right effects.

At that time, stereo tape recorders were either two- or three-track. Recording
engineers (especially at RCA and Mercury) were aware of the need to create a
believable stereo image. As they could not multi-track, they had no choice but
to make "good" recordings.

[Tommy B]

>before anybody but Les Paul and PeteSeeger were >multitracking.

Maybe that's why I dug the Weavers so much, but didn't know why. I'll have
to go back and listen to "Goodnight Irene".

Tom



"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> > > exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> > > instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> > > days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects
and
> > > actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> > > lot of that material start showing up.
> >
> > Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo recordings
> did not
> > use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply miked. It was the introduction
> of
> > multi-tracking that encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.
>
> "Ping-Pong" stereo got named for a famous demonstration record in the
> earliest days of stereo which featured a recording of, what else, a
> ping-pong game. It was the first stereo I heard, and I must say it was
> pretty impressive. (When the ball went off the table I distinctly heard
> sounds outside the ambit of the speakers.) This would have been about
1958.
>
> A lot of those early stereo records, before anybody but Les Paul and Pete
> Seeger were multitracking, had very exaggerated stereo soundstaging, just
so
> the buyers would figure they were getting their money's worth. Musta been
> hell to cut 'em.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

[Tommy B]

>before anybody but Les Paul and PeteSeeger were >multitracking.

Maybe that's why I dug the Weavers so much, but didn't know why. I'll have
to go back and listen to "Goodnight Irene".

Tom



"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Some of them sound good. Most of them are just horrible, with very
> > > exaggerated effects, like the string quartets with one closely-miked
> > > instrument in each corner of the room. But that was true in the early
> > > days of stereo too, before folks learned to avoid ping-pong effects
and
> > > actually use imaging to benefit the mixes. I think I'd like to see a
> > > lot of that material start showing up.
> >
> > Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo recordings
> did not
> > use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply miked. It was the introduction
> of
> > multi-tracking that encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.
>
> "Ping-Pong" stereo got named for a famous demonstration record in the
> earliest days of stereo which featured a recording of, what else, a
> ping-pong game. It was the first stereo I heard, and I must say it was
> pretty impressive. (When the ball went off the table I distinctly heard
> sounds outside the ambit of the speakers.) This would have been about
1958.
>
> A lot of those early stereo records, before anybody but Les Paul and Pete
> Seeger were multitracking, had very exaggerated stereo soundstaging, just
so
> the buyers would figure they were getting their money's worth. Musta been
> hell to cut 'em.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

[Paul Stamler]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> >> Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo
> >> recordings did not use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply
> >> miked. It was the introduction of multi-tracking that
> >> encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.
>
> > "Ping-Pong" stereo got named for a famous demonstration record in the
> > earliest days of stereo which featured a recording of, what else, a
> > ping-pong game. It was the first stereo I heard, and I must say it was
> > pretty impressive. (When the ball went off the table I distinctly heard
> > sounds outside the ambit of the speakers.) This would have been about
1958.
>
> > A lot of those early stereo records, before anybody but Les Paul and
Pete
> > Seeger were multitracking, had very exaggerated stereo soundstaging,
just
> > so the buyers would figure they were getting their money's worth. Musta
been
> > hell to cut 'em.
>
> You're confusing RCA and Enoch Light.
>
> It was Light's Command label that popularized "ping-pong" recording, so
that
> people buying fruitwood consoles barely 4' wide would hear left/right
effects.
>
> At that time, stereo tape recorders were either two- or three-track.
Recording
> engineers (especially at RCA and Mercury) were aware of the need to create
a
> believable stereo image. As they could not multi-track, they had no choice
but
> to make "good" recordings.

Not at all -- you can make perfectly horrible stereo recordings on a
two-track recorder. Just use too many microphones and mix them before
recording. Yes, those Command records were among the worst, but there were
Stereo Spectacular records on labels that shoulda known better, including
RCA and Columbia. Not classical recordings, mostly, but they were pretty
scary. Anybody remember "Stereo Action" recordings from RCA Victor?
Instruments and groups of instruments moved around the soundstage from
phrase to phrase, but mostly L, C and R. I suspect these were done on
3-track recorders. It was about 1959. I actually owned one of these; at age
9 thought it was the cat's pajamas. Later, in the late Sixties, they sounded
even cooler...

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> >> Actually, you're stating this backwards. The earliest stereo
> >> recordings did not use "ping-pong" effects. They were simply
> >> miked. It was the introduction of multi-tracking that
> >> encouraged exaggerated and "unnatural" effects.
>
> > "Ping-Pong" stereo got named for a famous demonstration record in the
> > earliest days of stereo which featured a recording of, what else, a
> > ping-pong game. It was the first stereo I heard, and I must say it was
> > pretty impressive. (When the ball went off the table I distinctly heard
> > sounds outside the ambit of the speakers.) This would have been about
1958.
>
> > A lot of those early stereo records, before anybody but Les Paul and
Pete
> > Seeger were multitracking, had very exaggerated stereo soundstaging,
just
> > so the buyers would figure they were getting their money's worth. Musta
been
> > hell to cut 'em.
>
> You're confusing RCA and Enoch Light.
>
> It was Light's Command label that popularized "ping-pong" recording, so
that
> people buying fruitwood consoles barely 4' wide would hear left/right
effects.
>
> At that time, stereo tape recorders were either two- or three-track.
Recording
> engineers (especially at RCA and Mercury) were aware of the need to create
a
> believable stereo image. As they could not multi-track, they had no choice
but
> to make "good" recordings.

Not at all -- you can make perfectly horrible stereo recordings on a
two-track recorder. Just use too many microphones and mix them before
recording. Yes, those Command records were among the worst, but there were
Stereo Spectacular records on labels that shoulda known better, including
RCA and Columbia. Not classical recordings, mostly, but they were pretty
scary. Anybody remember "Stereo Action" recordings from RCA Victor?
Instruments and groups of instruments moved around the soundstage from
phrase to phrase, but mostly L, C and R. I suspect these were done on
3-track recorders. It was about 1959. I actually owned one of these; at age
9 thought it was the cat's pajamas. Later, in the late Sixties, they sounded
even cooler...

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Tommy B" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> >before anybody but Les Paul and PeteSeeger were >multitracking.
>
> Maybe that's why I dug the Weavers so much, but didn't know why. I'll have
> to go back and listen to "Goodnight Irene".

Naw, the Weavers stuff was direct-to-mono (or, later, direct-to-stereo).
Pete Seeger was doing multiple overdubs for solo work, making film
soundtracks in his barn. He did it the hard way, bouncing tracks between
recorders.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Tommy B" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> >before anybody but Les Paul and PeteSeeger were >multitracking.
>
> Maybe that's why I dug the Weavers so much, but didn't know why. I'll have
> to go back and listen to "Goodnight Irene".

Naw, the Weavers stuff was direct-to-mono (or, later, direct-to-stereo).
Pete Seeger was doing multiple overdubs for solo work, making film
soundtracks in his barn. He did it the hard way, bouncing tracks between
recorders.

Peace,
Paul

[Tommy B]

>He did it the hard way, bouncing tracks between
>recorders.

Well then, how appropitate for this thread. ;-)
Tom



"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tommy B" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>> >before anybody but Les Paul and PeteSeeger were >multitracking.
>>
>> Maybe that's why I dug the Weavers so much, but didn't know why. I'll
>> have
>> to go back and listen to "Goodnight Irene".
>
> Naw, the Weavers stuff was direct-to-mono (or, later, direct-to-stereo).
> Pete Seeger was doing multiple overdubs for solo work, making film
> soundtracks in his barn. He did it the hard way, bouncing tracks between
> recorders.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

[Tommy B]

>He did it the hard way, bouncing tracks between
>recorders.

Well then, how appropitate for this thread. ;-)
Tom



"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tommy B" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>> >before anybody but Les Paul and PeteSeeger were >multitracking.
>>
>> Maybe that's why I dug the Weavers so much, but didn't know why. I'll
>> have
>> to go back and listen to "Goodnight Irene".
>
> Naw, the Weavers stuff was direct-to-mono (or, later, direct-to-stereo).
> Pete Seeger was doing multiple overdubs for solo work, making film
> soundtracks in his barn. He did it the hard way, bouncing tracks between
> recorders.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

[Robert Orban]

In article >,
says...

>I own the "Pet Sounds" DVD-A, and have yet to hear it, since I don't
>have the equipment yet. I bought a bunch of releases that I knew I'd
>want, figuring that they might go out of print.

I don't like it as much as the stereo mix, which I thought was a
revelation. IMHO, Mark Linnett simply didn't have enough tracks available
on the multitrack masters to do an effective surround mix of a record
originally intended for mono release.