Revolver 2022 Remix Will Use Digitally Extracted Stems

This going to be quite the test, in my experience, you can do a pretty good job of extracting most of the signal, it’s decay and spatial information that gets lost. Now one could argue that with the noise levels most likely on these old tracks you won’t hear much loss, but it’s those low level details that separates the men from the boys in this industry, so we shall see.

I just transferred a reel to reel copy of a local 7" mono acetate someone dubbed around 1968, probably several generations down, no treble at all. RX9, I engineered a tilt EQ with 20dB boost at the top, then de-noised the hiss a bit, then separated it into drums/bass/gtrs/vcls. The vocals are clean as can be, and have their own discrete reverb tails down to silence. Same with the guitar reverbs. There's more intermingling in the 'everything else' (guitars) than anywhere else, but not so much that I can't now make it a stereo mix. There's another transfer (from one of the other 3 acetates cut) on YouTube, done much more recently, and the acetate is shot, non-stop heavy crackle distortion, far more than you can really get out with RX9. Mine lacks treble in comparison, but wasn't worn yet.  And I think most of that 'treble' is really just distortion from the acetate.  

Yes, RX separations sound weird on their own, but they mash back together exactly as it was.   Only once have I encountered a null in something that was extremely heavy full mix distortion.  

The Beatles? I'm sure it'll be fine. I dig the nod towards both the original approach and modern mix capabilities. Yes, I'll take more drums and bass, after all they played it.

The Izotope separation rings but that was the last new thing they really did before the Native Instruments and private equity bs. I used it for one track where drums and bass were recorded together on one sdc. Izotope RX made the drums sound like pool noodles. Expansion was used for the other tracks with a scratch guitar and the drums played together and it sounds much more natural.

I can’t wait to hear it.
I’ve dug every Beatles remix Giles has done so far.

Unless they quit selling the originals. As they usually do.

My god yes.

Listening to this mix I can say I was underwhelmed. It doesn't sound bad but all the life is drained out of the original.

Anything to sell you another copy of an album you’ve already purchased four or five times already, I guess?

I mean, this has been going on since the advent of the compact disc. “Newly remastered!“ “Restored from the original source tapes!” “Now in 96k / DSD / SACD / DVD-A / 4xLP!!!!!”

We are talking about a recording that was made over 50 years ago, with comparatively limited equipment. As a forensic exercise it’s interesting, but as to making these classic releases “updated”, I have to pass.

Perhaps instead we could start creating “1965 editions” of current releases, folding them to 4 track analog and releasing them in mono.

Sorry, everyone… I am still just all kinds of whipped up about this for some reason. Maybe it’s because some of my favorite records of all time sound novel because of the limitations in their recording, not in spite of them. low-fi isn’t by any means bad, or wrong (I’m not saying the Beatles are low-fi either - but they were most certainly limited).

The unfortunate part of doing what it is we all here do, be it professionally or otherwise, is that we intersect with a jaundiced industry that thinks about profit first, quality and integrity much less. I’m not a Beatles megauberfan, but listening to my dad’s vinyl copy of Sgt Peppers at the age of four definitely formed something in me. To me, meaning this is my sole opinion, that album sounds as it was intended to. There is nothing that needs to be “fixed“.

It’s that limping husk of “the old way” of marketing and selling music that creates these sort of needless re-re-re-release iterations - all so a dead chomo’s estate can squeeze another million or two out of a record that sounded great over a half century ago.

We aren’t digitally remastering Picasso. Or the Statue of David. Timeless is timeless. Leave it alone.

I’ll Venmo y’all for the therapy appointment.

Seems to me this is just about the money.

For me, a quality album/song was also a statement in time: a testament to where the artist/band was at musically and the production was part of that.

The album sounded the way everyone (sort of) agreed it should sound, changing any aspect after the fact (decades later), changes in a way the original work.

Everything old, does not necessarily need to be new again, or is improved in the effort.

Are you saying there’s a US release mix with the bass down or that it’s mastered with less low end? Because the latter could be solved by turning the bass up on your receiver or just getting a copy of the UK edition. As to the former, I’ve never heard of anything like that. Not saying it couldn’t have happened or didn’t happen, just that I’ve not heard of it.

I dunno, it’s a divisive issue and clearly there’s a market. No way would the rights holders and label put money into this if there weren’t plenty of research to indicate it wasn’t a sure bet.

If we are talking about restoring recordings that are extremely compromised, say a 60 year old acetate of unheard or lesser heard of artists, yeah - I am on board. I love some of that crazy old Appalachian or chitlin circuit boogie like Hasil Adkins or Esquerita. The source recordings were heavily decayed when found, and weren’t that good to begin with. Certainly more than even the most intrepid Sound Designer II user could restore in the 90’s.

But to hear “The Beatles as you’ve never heard them before!” ehhh, yeah, not feeling it. Even if the original mixes don’t have the ear candy that modern technology provides, I see vintage recordings as time capsules. But that’s me.