|
Post by Johnkenn on May 25, 2017 9:55:13 GMT -6
What is more appropriate for a pro audio forum than a Beatles discussion? Anyway, I'm as excited as a little schoolgirl. It's funny how we all attributed the weird panning to the groups "innovations" in the studio...but apparently it was just lazy mastering for stereo when they were really only concerned with mono. Just listening to the three available snippets on iTunes, I'm super excited. Their sound is just the benchmark to me - even 50 years later. Listen to the Love album too. Damn. It's inspiring to me as a songwriter - to not let myself become boxed in by a genre or keeping up with trends. Makes me want to record. And roll off some of he damn top.
|
|
|
Post by john on May 25, 2017 13:05:12 GMT -6
i echo all of that John. very excited to soak it in. lately I'm recording everything: 4038->redd47->rs124->warm pultec->neve tape saturator. healthy bx10 and echoplex throughout where desired. closest I have ever been to the sound in my head. probably thanks to their recordings and songs. so inspired from the sound alone.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on May 25, 2017 15:44:46 GMT -6
i echo all of that John. very excited to soak it in. lately I'm recording everything: 4038->redd47->rs124->warm pultec->neve tape saturator. healthy bx10 and echoplex throughout where desired. closest I have ever been to the sound in my head. probably thanks to their recordings and songs. so inspired from the sound alone. Helluva chain right there... I got a blue line m7 with transformer class A schoeps circuit mic and a stock Apollo preamp... Did you struggle with your sound before you had that awesome chain? Does anyone know how they are going to ReMaster and from what? Tape or vinyl or have the sessions been stored on digital media? How is this master going to sound different versus the one before where you say the mastering messed up the panning?
|
|
|
Post by reddirt on May 25, 2017 22:19:24 GMT -6
Thanks for bringing this up JK ; whilst my mid teenage years were excited by Sgt Pepper, in retrospect the apex of relaxed / perfect sound was achieved for me 3 or 4 yrs later on McCartney's Admiral Halsey (Hands across the water) trk. If you don't / didn't rate it because it seemed a bit "naff", check it out again. So right it got out of the way and let the (very creative) music speak perfectly ; a lot to learn from those times. Cheers, Ross
|
|
|
Post by levon on May 25, 2017 23:23:07 GMT -6
What is more appropriate for a pro audio forum than a Beatles discussion? Anyway, I'm as excited as a little schoolgirl. It's funny how we all attributed the weird panning to the groups "innovations" in the studio...but apparently it was just lazy mastering for stereo when they were really only concerned with mono. Just listening to the three available snippets on iTunes, I'm super excited. Their sound is just the benchmark to me - even 50 years later. Listen to the Love album too. Damn. It's inspiring to me as a songwriter - to not let myself become boxed in by a genre or keeping up with trends. Makes me want to record. And roll off some of he damn top. THIS And I'm very much looking forward to the reissue of the White Album...
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on May 26, 2017 13:06:39 GMT -6
holy fnck. it's perfect.
|
|
|
Post by winetree on May 26, 2017 19:59:28 GMT -6
My friend is a huge Beatles fan and just got his boxed set today. Next week I'll go over and listen to it. With, then, 4 track machines they would fill up 4 tracks and bounce the 4 tracks to one track of another machine. Fill the the remaining 3 tracks and bounce it again. So by the time they had the final 4 tracks , there were tracks that were already generations down. All mixing decisions were made during the bounce downs. Plus it was mixed in mono. He explained they went back to the original Tape tracks. The ones used to do the bounces. They were said to be like a new car that had been put in storage for 50 years. So they now had all original first generation tracks to work with. They were then able to remix the original individual tracks.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on May 26, 2017 20:07:08 GMT -6
I think this is going to be well received by some people and regarded by folks like myself who think it's the equivalent of reamping some secret DI capture of Jimi Hendrix's guitar.
No matter how much cleaner or true to the sound you think these new mixes are, the originals to me will always be the gold standard. Mono and stereo second were amazing feats considering the limit of their technology. The decisions they made were bold and done in the spirit of the moment. What about the stuff that got cut during bounces?
The new mixes do sound "good," but also sound less like the albums. The generational loss and bounces did some cool things to their sound that I miss without them.
Thanks -L.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,973
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on May 26, 2017 20:37:48 GMT -6
I think this is going to be well received by some people and regarded by folks like myself who think it's the equivalent of reamping some secret DI capture of Jimi Hendrix's guitar. No matter how much cleaner or true to the sound you think these new mixes are, the originals to me will always be the gold standard. Mono and stereo second were amazing feats considering the limit of their technology. The decisions they made were bold and done in the spirit of the moment. What about the stuff that got cut during bounces? The new mixes do sound "good," but also sound less like the albums. The generational loss and bounces did some cool things to their sound that I miss without them. Thanks -L. It always felt like the grit and the grime were part of the aesthetic they were shooting for and part of their choices. Agreed there will be vocal lovers and haters, those in the middle won't be heard.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 26, 2017 20:48:30 GMT -6
Talk about Pandora's Box! Should be very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on May 26, 2017 23:04:34 GMT -6
Yeah, well, you know. Nothing will live up to your first love. Even if it's glory is heavier. Nostalgia.
Every new peak we get into the recordings is just another perspective. These sounds were always there. We just get to hear it in a new way. Not less. Not more.
That's my take. 3...4...
Don't have to say it out loud. It will be in the bass.
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on May 27, 2017 19:38:31 GMT -6
I played the remix for my mother today. She is 67. Classically trained Oboe player. Played in symphonies all her life. First I played her the remix. Then I played the last release which was the stereo remaster. Then the remix again.
Her comments were the remix sounded "sharper" and "more aggressive". She thought the remastered version sounded "mellower".
i agree with her, and enjoyed hearing her opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 27, 2017 19:54:36 GMT -6
I think this is going to be well received by some people and regarded by folks like myself who think it's the equivalent of reamping some secret DI capture of Jimi Hendrix's guitar. No matter how much cleaner or true to the sound you think these new mixes are, the originals to me will always be the gold standard. Mono and stereo second were amazing feats considering the limit of their technology. The decisions they made were bold and done in the spirit of the moment. What about the stuff that got cut during bounces? The new mixes do sound "good," but also sound less like the albums. The generational loss and bounces did some cool things to their sound that I miss without them. Thanks -L. Were we hearing The Beatles' panning choices in the previous stereo versions? Did they ok the "drums on the left" stuff? I've read and heard from people that that stuff was all a mistake...Regardless, it sounded fantastic and everybody thought "Damn they're so cool they don't even need the drums in the middle..."
|
|
|
Post by illacov on May 27, 2017 20:49:17 GMT -6
I think this is going to be well received by some people and regarded by folks like myself who think it's the equivalent of reamping some secret DI capture of Jimi Hendrix's guitar. No matter how much cleaner or true to the sound you think these new mixes are, the originals to me will always be the gold standard. Mono and stereo second were amazing feats considering the limit of their technology. The decisions they made were bold and done in the spirit of the moment. What about the stuff that got cut during bounces? The new mixes do sound "good," but also sound less like the albums. The generational loss and bounces did some cool things to their sound that I miss without them. Thanks -L. Were we hearing The Beatles' panning choices in the previous stereo versions? Did they ok the "drums on the left" stuff? I've read and heard from people that that stuff was all a mistake...Regardless, it sounded fantastic and everybody thought "Damn they're so cool they don't even need the drums in the middle..." The mono stuff is my preferred format to be honest. Stereo is a will do for me. However, considering Motown did the hard panned drums thing and Motown was according to Geoff Emerick's memoir the thing they were chasing. All interesting topics to say the least! Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by joey808 on May 27, 2017 21:01:36 GMT -6
I want to hear the Vinyl.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 27, 2017 22:26:09 GMT -6
Prior to 1968 stereo was an afterthought in pop music much like 5.1 is today. The idea that the grungy sound was an intentional aesthetic choice is BS from the '80s. When I visited EMI in 1969 they were thrilled to have begun using 8 track machines that would clean up the audio quality of multitrack projects.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on May 28, 2017 0:19:34 GMT -6
Prior to 1968 stereo was an afterthought in pop music much like 5.1 is today. The idea that the grungy sound was an intentional aesthetic choice is BS from the '80s. When I visited EMI in 1969 they were thrilled to have begun using 8 track machines that would clean up the audio quality of multitrack projects. Did you guys hard pan whole drum sets at Motown? What was the reason if so?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 28, 2017 13:11:13 GMT -6
For a while some people did on the Motown stereo mixes. We didn't need to because we had 8 track beginning in 1964 and the drums (just OH and foot on two kits) were mixed to a separate track. With 3 and 4 track, a lot more than just drums would be on a track routed to the side. (We went straight from 3 to 8.)
|
|
|
Post by avgatzeblouz on May 28, 2017 20:05:37 GMT -6
So I'm listening to it right now. It is just amazing. Sounds wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on May 30, 2017 13:55:42 GMT -6
So abbey road is going to release the mix notes right? Then every single piece of gear they used is gonna quadruple in value. I heard they did a deconstructing the mix for a day in the life and it's gonna be on mix with the masters. I wish.
|
|
|
Post by aamicrophones on May 30, 2017 19:02:25 GMT -6
I think the amazing thing is the creativeness of the recording process. The Mixing was done by George Martin and Geoff Emerick. George's book, "All You Need is Ears" is quite illuminating.
What you should learn from Sargeant Pepper's is that its OK to break rules and experiment.
Breaking normal pop song structures and breaking existing recording techniques can be very enlightening.
Geoff Emerick is one year older than I am and now lives in LA. He started working at Abbey Road when he was 15. He was the tape op on the first couple of recordings.
He lied about his age and told EMI he was 16. I think he starting salary would have been about $25 dollars a week and he was asked if he would rather get a $5 a week raise or a raise equal to a 6db rise and he replied 6db because it twice as loud and he got the job.
Because Geoff Emerick was young he was not subject to too many years of the Abbey Road "white lab coat" approach to recording. Geoff with George's permission used some un-conventional (not tried and true) recording techniques.
He placed the kick drum microphone closer that the EMI allowed 18" and brought the drum overhead microphones down lower and individually miked some drums.
There is lots of vary speeding of the tape machines which they accomplished by using a very large power amplifier to drive the tape machines capstan motor.
In the UK the tape machine motor ran at 50hz per second but on some of John's vocals, the tape machine was slowed down to 45hz from an external signal generator and then played back at 50hz.
Some vocals were played back through a Leslie speaker and re-recorded. There is lots of tape echo and automatic double tracking going on.
It a Classic Recording on many levels and broke the existing mold and gave others permission to experiment in the studio.
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on May 30, 2017 19:25:34 GMT -6
interesting thx, there is a youtube emericks interview about pepper .
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,973
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on May 30, 2017 19:52:18 GMT -6
I think the amazing thing is the creativeness of the recording process. The Mixing was done by George Martin and Jeff Emerick. George's book, "All You Need is Ears" is quite illuminating. What you should learn from Sargeant Pepper's is that its OK to break rules and experiment. Breaking normal pop song structures and breaking existing recording techniques can enlightening. Jeff Emerick is one year older than I am and now lives in LA. He started working at Abbey Road when he was 15. He was the tape op on the first couple of recordings. He lied about his age and told EMI he was 16. I think he starting salary would have been about $25 dollars a week and he was asked if he would rather get a $5 a week raise or a raise equal to a 6db rise and he replied 6db because it twice as loud and he got the job. Because Jeff Emerick was young he was not subject to too many years of the Abbey Road "white lab coat" approach to recording. Jeff with George's permission used some un-conventional (not tried and true) recording techniques. He placed the kick drum microphone closer that the EMI allowed 18" and brought the drum overhead microphones down lower and individually miked the drums. There is lots of vary speeding of the tape machines which they accomplished by using a very large power amplifier to drive the tape machines capstan motor. In the UK the tape machine motor ran at 50hz per second but on some of John's vocals, the tape machine was slowed down to 45hz from an external signal generator and then played back at 50hz. Some vocals were played back through a Leslie speaker and re-recorded. There is lots of tape echo and automatic double tracking going on. It a Classic Recording on many levels and broke the existing mild and gave other permission to experiment in the studio. Cheers, Dave Geof's book is quite the read as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on May 31, 2017 10:18:27 GMT -6
The sound of the drums and piano on SP always impressed me.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 31, 2017 14:39:27 GMT -6
I was expecting to be underwhelmed, but the first one or two times I played this new mix, man, blew my mind.
Ringo is by far my favorite Beatle at this point. So good to hear a little Ringo for me.
The LSD stuff is just as embarrassing to me as I remembered it, but I try to focus on the 3 or 4 songs that are just as good as a song could ever be.
|
|