Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Klaus Heyne]

Two box sets of yet another ‘re-mastered’ Beatles music compendium (mono/stereo years) were recently issued by EMI for a whopping

[kats]

Klaus Heyne wrote on Wed, 09 September 2009 20:29

Am I the only one who thinks that this project is clumsy, disrespectful historic revisionism of an art piece that should have never been undertaken?

The 1987 digital masters are atrocious. Unless you have the vinyl versions (preferably the Parlophone as the Capitol (IME) are not as good) you will be stuck with those lousy CD's.

So in that sense, "re-digitizing" off the original analog tape masters would indeed be a worthwhile undertaking. However when the liner notes on the stereo version say  it is remastered from the digital 2 track of the mix George Martin made in 1986 for the original CDs- then it is a complete scam IMO. Having said that, there is news that the mono set is indeed a re-master of the original analog master tapes. As far as tinkering with it is concerned my opinion is this:

Not for the mono recordings, but perhaps yes for the stereo recordings as the stereo versions do not represent the musical intentions of the producers or artists since their main concern was with the mono mixes.

George Martin had this to say in 1987 on the subject:

Quote:

The mixes that I did in 1964 were fine for vinyl, issued in 1964. When you hear them on CD, they're not fine. Now the reason for this is that you hear a wider frequency range on CD, and you're hearing things that I never intended you to listen to in the first place, in 1964. I was making a record that was designed to cut through the fog of the players of those days. What I'm saying is that the mixes I did then, when they're heard in the form they were done then were fine; but if you're hearing them as CDs, they should be different in order to be the same.

[Mike Cleaver]

First listening to the new box sets:
I had ordered the mono set for myself.
This is how I first heard and played The Beatles on radio back in the '60's, on vinyl, both Parlophone/EMI and Capitol.
I have to disagree with Klaus, probably for the first time.
To me, this set replaces the vinyl I had to give up years ago because the cost of moving a collection that size across Canada twice was more than I could afford.
I listened to the mono set today, sampling the best known tracks from each album.
I'm very pleased with my purchase, even though I have dozens of Beatles cds, some which sound thin and brittle.
These are stereo releases from past decades, imports, box sets, domestic releases etc.
My partner surprised me today by presenting me with the stereo set as well.
Here, I have to say I do agree with Klaus.
Listening to the same cuts from the various albums, I can hear things I don't like.
There is noticeable compression on many cuts and some heavy handed fader riding in places.
I'm not certain this was not there on the originals or we simply couldn't hear it on the equipment of the time.
Remember again, I first heard and played The Beatles on 16" Rek-o-Kut Turntables with Gray viscous damped arms with GE VRII mono turnaround cartridges running into a tube RCA board into an RCA 15" Wedge speaker.
Those were "my" Beatles and the mono set brought them back today.

[J.J. Blair]

Don't forget, on some of the 1987 CDs, those were not taken from the master 2 tracks.  George Martin remixed several albums for those releases, and my understanding is that some of the other ones used safeties, and not the original master 2 track tapes.

Quote:

GEORGE MARTIN: And at that time, they also asked me to look at the next batch of records, which is, "Help!" "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver," which are due to come out in April. And I looked at those and found that the stereos of that weren't very good. They were very woolly, and not at all what I thought should be a good issue. I went back to the four-tracks on those and actually did remix them -- not changing anything, but hardening up the sound a little bit, and cutting down a little background noise. By going back to the four tracks, we get a cleaner sound even than you can get with contemporary recording, because four-track one-inch is a much better medium than 24 track two-inch. ALLAN KOZINN: How possible is it to precisely recreate a mix that you had done 20 years ago from a four track? GEORGE MARTIN: It's impossible. In a word, it's impossible. Everything is different. The [mixing] desks in those days were tube operated, they weren't transistorized. All the outboard gear that we have today didn't exist. The EQ characteristics are quite different, much cruder. The echo facilities in Abbey Road consisted of a long cellar like room with old drain pipes standing around; they had nothing like electronic echo at all. So yes, it's impossible to get exactly the same, no matter how much you try. But in fact, I think it would be wrong in any case to get the same mix. The mixes that I did in 1964 were fine for vinyl, issued in 1964. When you hear them on CD, they're not fine. Now the reason for this is that you hear a wider frequency range on CD, and you're hearing things that I never intended you to listen to in the first place, in 1964. I was making a record that was designed to cut through the fog of the players of those days. What I'm saying is that the mixes I did then, when they're heard in the form they were done then were fine; but if you're hearing them as CDs, they should be different in order to be the same.

bold added by K.H.

[Silvertone]

I don't buy what George Martin is saying here either...  when Irwin needed to make new masters of Simon and Grafunkel's 'Bridge Over Troubled Water' album because the original master and 6 safety copies had been re-issued so much that none of them were any good anymore, he called Roy Halee, Simon & Garfunkel and they "remade" the studio of the era and spent a week remixing new masters (and safeties)... to sound exactly like the old ones.  It can be done...

Chris Muth and Geoff Emerick, now with Sir Paul have been asking to re-issue the original mono mixes for a while now... if these 3 can't make it happen then I don't think we'll ever really see it (or hear it).

[jrmintz]

I remember a Mobile Fidelity Labs vinyl reissue several years ago - how did that compare?

[Electric Warrior]

Silvertone wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 12:35

I don't buy what GM is saying here either...  when Irwin need to make new masters of Simon and Grafunkel's Bridge Over Troubled Water album because the original master and 6 safety copies had been re-issued so much that none of them were any good anymore he called Roy Halee, Simon & Garfunkel and they "remade" the studio of the era and spent a week remixing new masters (and safeties)... to sound exactly like the old ones.  It can be done...

The Simon and Garfunkel albums are a real bargain. I got the box set with all five albums and the Central Park concert DVD for 20

[MagnetoSound]

Silvertone wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 11:35

Chris Muth and Geoff Emerick now with Sir Paul have been asking to re-issue the original mono mixes for a while now... if these 3 can't make it happen then I don't think we'll ever really see it (or hear it).

I was under the impression that the new MONO box set is the original mono mixes, with the original stereo mixes of Help and Rubber Soul thrown in.

If it is, then - as long as it has been transferred respectfully at the mastering stage - it should be exactly what we have all been waiting for - although I have yet to hear it, so I cannot give an opinion at this time.

IMO, the real harm was done in 1986, when the stereo remixes were made. THAT is when those spurious reverbs were added and EQs tweaked. GM's judgement seems to me to have been rather clouded at that time, under pressure from the EMI bosses.

[Jim Williams]

Any attempt to convert those master tapes with modern 24 or 32 bit converters is going to be revealing. That should be the idea.

I find nothing wrong with that. You can always play those 1960's records. If you don't like it don't buy it.

What's this got to do with the subject here, microphones? This should be in another forum.

[kats]

Because were it not for The Beatles, U47's could be had for $3k.

[strangeandbouncy]

Hi,


  I still prefer to listen to The Beatles on my parents old mono valve Dansette record player. That's how I first heard it, and it STILL give me the same thrill to hear it that way, which I do religiously whenever I go to their house.


  That IS the right way to hear The Beatles, scratches, thumps and skips n' all! I recommend you do the same(, though best not at my Mum's house!)


  Kindest regards,


     ANdyP

[Rader Ranch]

It's a little odd that, even amongst the "in the know" crowd such as us audio folk here at PSW, there's so much misinformation being tossed around that folks can't even agree on/decide just what these things are.

I"ve only got the mono set on the way, as it's a trip when I think how I've never heard this music that means so much to me as it was intended. Just weird.

[Klaus Heyne]

Jim Williams wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 07:46

What's this got to do with the subject here, microphones? This should be in another forum.

Jim,
I am happy that you have gotten so used to the tight "on-topic" reign of this forum that you immediately noticed when someone was straying off message.

But just a quick reminder regarding "Critic At Large" threads:

Quote:

Here, in my muddy b(l)og, I will bring up, and offer for discussion, random observations from the periphery, rather than the center, of the microphone and audio business.

(http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/23181/318/)

[Klaus Heyne]

Rader Ranch wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 10:19

(...)it's a trip when I think how I've never heard this music that means so much to me as it was intended

But that was precisely the point of my comments: The people who originally recorded and mastered the music were not present during the re-mastering/mix.  

And even if they had been in charge during the original recording, it would be impossible for them to recreate the material- or emotional circumstances present during the original creation of the works now, forty years later.

[Rader Ranch]

Klaus, re: the mono remasters in particular, isn't the whole point that a) they are precisely that, remasters, no remixing/re effecting done at all, and b)we the general public are finally getting to hear them, which means that we are getting that most direct window into the past? The hope of many was that there would be no heavy hand with the mono in terms of eq/limiting/(God forbid)NR, and if that is indeed the case, what other damage was there to be done? I mean, clearly there was eq and limiting on the original mono releases (however many versions of those there were for each album) but I wouldn't include the mastering engineers take(s) on things (intended for vinyl with its limitations) as part of the magic I"m looking forward to hearing...(whenever my boxed set shows up from Amazon, in 3-6 weeks...sigh).

I'm just not seeing how the mono could be seen as revisionist in that context, particularly considering the frequent, extreme shortcomings of the stereo mixes we've had to "suffer" with (an odd way to talk about some of the best music of the 20th century to be sure). Only analogy I can come up with at the moment, but it's like taking a classic film, say a Tarkovsy work, and pretend that the only version that was regularly broadcast or otherwise available to the public is some crappy Turner-colorized version. I'd be pretty desperate to see the original b/w no matter what they had to do to xfer it, would certainly be happy that it be available on DVD and not have to search for rare, expensive (and probably inferior, bootleg) VHS/Beta copies, and would certainly think of it as the true original (even if said colorization had been done only weeks after the orig print).