Beatles remastering process info

[DaneelOlivaw]

After reading the first few of posts I skipped down & started writing the following, so apologies if this has been said already.

Compression and limiting are not the same thing folks.

Compression and average volume level also are not the same thing.

And raising the average volume level can be a good thing: that's because doing this enables the analog-to-digital convertor to use more of the sample word's bits, which in turn means more resolution because the more bits used, the finer the voltage steps the waveform is encoded with (this is a different issue than sampling frequency; actually, based on what I've read elsewhere many professionals think sample word length has - relatively speaking - more audible effect on sound than sampling frequency. Off-topic FYI: part of the sonic advantage of using higher sampling frequencies is related to the types of *filters* used with them, not because of the increased # of samples [as per Mr. Nyquist ]).

 

[ChristopherLees]

Don't be silly. You haven't been unpleasant. We look at music differently, that's all.

What saddens me is that when we're young we take such pleasure in taking an old scratchy record and simply enjoying the music. Then we get old and we seem to yearn for something other than the simple endorphin release. We need justification for blowing stupid money on silver discs and new equipment. We forget the simple joy of sitting there and nodding your head or closing your eyes and losing yourself in the music. We look at squiggly lines or listen to the people that "are supposed to know everything".

We need to get back to what made us love music to begin with. The music!

Anyway, peace and love.

No...the only thing cheap and nasty in the old days were the 7 inch singles.... the annoying thing these days is when you spend money on a new remaster that sounds much worse than what you already have , whether it be a clean old lp record or a scratchy old lp record...(or in the case of Rhino , a cd that they had already released a few years earlier with a few less bonus tracks)...all the new technology and the ability to avoid gain riding and the end product is garbage..

I want this new set to sound really good...an alternative to playing my high end and normal vinyl.......can't they just play the original tape as it is (after cleaning the dust off)..instead of playing with it/changing it ....or is that really too difficult?

besides I like the bad guitar drop edit on "Day tripper" (which sounds best on the bootleg cd unsurpassed masters vol 1)..which has already been messed with on the 1 Hits compilation...
(a compilation that was also remastered with no real huge improvement in sound quality)

the 1987 cd's were not that great sounding ...the cd ep box set was much better

In 1964/65 Dave Dexter at Capitol thought he knew best...now in 2009 we have a new bunch of guys thinking they know best., I hope they do...

at least they don't seem to have fiddled as much with the mono box set...so I guess there is one box potentially worth owning

 

[Doug G.]

Key,

I, for one, agree with you. It doesn't sound good.

There is always the ego factor and the tendency for these guys to do things just so they can, sometime in the future, say to their friends, "hear that? That was ME that did that!"

I have heard quite a few terrible recently remastered CDs. One example I consider really bad is Aldo Nova. The original LP is so much better.

Doug

 

[timbre4]

PAUL Hicks. In my mind the modern day Ken Scott. Great ears. Apple knows the monos mean a lot to Beatle fans so they wanted the best ears for the job.

Oops Pete Hicks was a bass player for Steve Hackett; wires crossed.

 

[daved64]

I want this new set to sound really good...an alternative to playing my high end and normal vinyl.......can't they just play the original tape as it is (after cleaning the dust off)..instead of playing with it/changing it ....or is that really too difficult?

If this was possible there would be no need for a mastering engineer. You would not like most master tapes if you heard them flat. Even back then The Beatles had a guy named Harry Moss that would master the final cutting tape. Even the mighty Steve Hoffman tweaks tapes for EQ.

The 87 discs were screwed due to playing back mono tapes on stereo decks, bad tape azimuth etc....

These guys spent 4 years on this. Let's hear them first, then bitch.

Ironically, My good pal Chris M at SH posted the same thing when presented with this "just play the tape" silliness:

Originally Posted by Chris M
Steve has said several times that audiophiles wouldn't like the sound of lots of master tapes. Other mastering engineers have said the same thing. This is what mastering engineers do. They EQ things until they like it. Some studios used crappy monitors. If the monitors used when mixing are very bass shy or if they hung them from the ceilling then the master will likely have way too much bass on most systems. A flat transfer would sound poor unless you had the same speakers, room and speaker placement as the original studio.

This place became obsessed with flat transfers long ago because Steve used to talk about them but what some people missed is he used to say he liked flat transfers because he could EQ them on his own to get them to sound right.

 

[ChristopherLees]

If this was possible there would be no need for a mastering engineer. You would not like most master tapes if you heard them flat. Even back then The Beatles had a guy named Harry Moss that would master the final cutting tape. Even the mighty Steve Hoffman tweaks tapes for EQ.

The 87 discs were screwed due to playing back mono tapes on stereo decks, bad tape azimuth etc....

These guys spent 4 years on this. Let's hear them first, then bitch.

yes time will time about the results, and I hope it is good...
it's just ironic that a digital system that was claimed to have wider dynamic range
than tape, uses volume limiting when transferring from tape...

if the tape is played back on the same machine or the same type of machine that it was recorded on, then really what tweaking is needed? ...once the azimuth and speed is correct..... unless the guys can't make a decent recording in the first place....and I know that's not true......but perhaps if they mixed the stuff to the mastertape using bad speakers, then yes eq it perhaps if you have a decent hifi to check it against...but we're talking about EMI here...not some low budget studio...with low budget speakers....... what goes into a good tape machine should come out pretty much the same way....I've never heard a Studer J37 working badly on playback.. ..So using lots of eq is almost an admission that they got the stereo mixdown wrong the first time....which might be true of some stuff, after all they did feel the need in 1987 to re-do help and rubber soul (with 1987 digital reverb)...and from memory the opening vocals on nowhere man were a little distorted on the original 1965 stereo mix

but people are prepared to pay good money for things like an original mint copy of the German Die Beatles Horzu ...
and the remastered and tweaked one singles collection, whilst serviceable was far from being any audiophile holy grail...so I'm not holding my breath...and after the description given of this set, the monos look to have been treated better than the stereos..(which is very good news for the mono's)..

Of the four years spent ,there was a considerable time spent just discussing royalty payments..I nearly mentioned it in the sgt pepper post a couple of weeks ago as EMI would dearly love to pay royalties on this at the original old royalty rate...especially since they are in tough times...they recently raised their own royalty prices for sublicensing their product to independant record companies to something like 28% + of price before dealer, up from around 24 or 25% if my memory serves me....not that any of the extra money would actually flow back to the artist..it was about a 20% rise for no real reason given..

 

[JohnN]

Sound & Vision
http://bitstream.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2009/04/beatles-cds-remastered-finally.html

 

[Old Quad Guy]

However the discs sound like, I hope these box sets don't cost a freaking fortune! Like over $200 or $300 bucks per box. Not for just CDs with no Multi-Channel or Hi-Rez. At least the cardboard they come in look nice...

I bought my first CD player in 1987 JUST for The Beatles on CD. So, I'll buy these, IF they don't cost too much and the sound is good.

 

[daved64]

However the discs sound like, I hope these box sets don't cost a freaking fortune! Like over $200 or $300 bucks per box. Not for just CDs with no Multi-Channel or Hi-Rez. At least the cardboard they come in look nice...

I bought my first CD player in 1987 JUST for The Beatles on CD. So, I'll buy these, IF they don't cost too much and the sound is good.

If you figure an average cd price of $15, then the stereo box sould be $199 and the Mono box $149, unless they make the box out of solid granite and charge accordingly.

 

[Key]

Yeah I replied in that maze of a thread to Chris M. I said pretty much the same thing Christopher just said. Not all "flat transfers" are "flat". Hoffman will also search out the original signal chain or an approximation of it - same tape machine, speakers when he is doing a mastering job.

And I think saying we want a flat transfer is changing the debate to a strawman debate. While I will agree with the "if it isn't broke then don't fix it" philosophy I expect some EQ may be needed because the speaker placement when they mixed the Beatles stereo albums was poor/incorrect. I do not expect that any dynamic range compression would be needed. Same with declicking - they said the tapes were fine and not damaged so why are they "restoring" them. The answer is they are not "restoring" they are revising history.

 

[Key]

Key,

I, for one, agree with you. It doesn't sound good.

There is always the ego factor and the tendency for these guys to do things just so they can, sometime in the future, say to their friends, "hear that? That was ME that did that!"

I have heard quite a few terrible recently remastered CDs. One example I consider really bad is Aldo Nova. The original LP is so much better.

Doug

I went to School for recording arts - School will remain nameless because I do not recommend it - and I noticed something among the people that were trying to mix.

I remember when I first sat down at a mixing station next to other mixing stations with other people trying to mix. We all had the same songs to mix at each individual station and we were all mixing on headphones. Anyway when I looked at the others they had an INSANE amount of patch cables running in and out of all these compressors and outboard gear etc... And I kind of got insecure like wow these people REALLY know what they are doing, they are using 6 compressors to my 1.

Later we were doing the same thing and we got bored so the teacher set up a mix competition. All 8 students or however many were in the Lab that day were to mix the same song and then we would compare at the end of the class to see which one was better. Same deal about half way through mixing I look up and everyone except me has an insane amount of patch cables going in and out of gear etc... and here I was without a single patch cable running. I did all the mixing at the board with gain staging and light EQ without one single piece of outboard gear being utilized.

Hands down at the end of the class EVERYONE agreed my mix sounded MUCH better than the ones with all the compressors etc... This was when I realized that engineers tend to use gear because they think they are supposed to and not because the music actually needs it.

 

[JohnN]

http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/040909beatles/
By Mark Fleischmann Home Theater mag.
Is this really such an earthshaking event? It remains to be seen if these reissues will add to our understanding of the Liverpudlian rock icons. CDs are by their nature limited to two channels, so these new discs will probably not be as revelatory as the surround mixes of Love on DVD-Audio and The Beatles Anthology DVD set in Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1. It is also unlikely that the latest stereo mixes will be as provocatively revisionist as Sir Paul's fabulous de-Spectorization of Let It Be as Let It Be Naked. But all that remains to be seen.

And how's the sound? According to Kevin Howlett, who wrote the liner notes, "you really can tell the difference. It's an extraordinary thing to sit there and hear LPs that you know so well and hear little nuances that you hadn't noticed before." Followers of the loudness wars, take note: "they sound louder." Uh-oh.

 

[Key]

See I am not opposed to things being louder. What I am opposed to is squashing depth out of recordings.

When you make the soft sounds louder and the loud sounds softer what you are doing is removing all of the 3-D depth information mixed into stereo.

Sounds that are further away from you are softer, have more reverb, and have less bass and high end. Sounds that are closer to you have more bass and highend, are louder, and have less reverb. These are the basics of "depth mixing"

Now when you go in and use an EQ to bring up the high end you are making the drums come out of the speakers more and get closer to you. This can have a percieved effect of more clarity - closer seems clearer. BUT this also brings up the reverb and makes it louder. Then the mastering engineer can go in and hype up the bass a little typically. This again brings the sounds closer in virtual space to the listener.

My main point and where I see things go wrong is that reverb. Since the reverb gets louder (further away effect) AND the high end does (closer effect) it throws off the mixes depth and can make it sound fake.

If you compare nicely mastered records to modern mastered CDs you can hear the effect very easily on the drums most of the time. While from the 60s, 70s and some of the bands of the 80s will have the drum set pushed back in the mix a little on the original mixes/mastering with more modern sounding CDs and mastering the drums will be up in your face. And while they push the drums up in your face they also push everything else up waaay further in your face.

 

[JonUrban]

Key,

Since you have experience at this, let me ask you. Does a mastering engineer feel like they want to make an impression on the music, sort of putting their stamp on it, by "fixing" it with EQ, volume variances, and maximization? Is it competitive to make the "new" version sound better than the old, or is it just a certain type of mastering engineer that does this?

I would assume that everyone wants folks to say "good job", but it also must be prevailant that people want to establish themselves as a "go to" guy.

So, in the class that all picked your version of the remix, were the other students indignant or were they amazed? What did the proffessor say?

 

[Key]

I can't blame the engineer or any specific party involved exactly. I just think people like BRIGHT products. And usually someone somewhere in the chain of command will request it.

When I worked in the photo lab I got the best reactions out of my boss and the customers when I just said eff it and goosed the hell out of the photos. Jacking up the brightness and contrast to unrealistic levels and using gradients (equivalent to multi-band dynamics processing) so that I could REALLY squash the photo.

I think what happens a lot of the time is the artist wants it and demands it. You get the demand for the goosing treatment so much you just end up doing it to everything and getting it over with.

I actually LOVE the sound of some of the early nineties hip hop CDs that have sparse compression or limiting on them. And I did experiment with it with my own music only to later go back and stop using it. I went in a full circle on the subject in the last 8 years or so.

First I had posted a demo of a song I had written and recorded on a forum. This later (without my knowledge) ended up on an unofficial compilation along side other artists with MUCH louder tracks.

I dunno it felt like my song was way too soft and tiny compared to everyone else who was running there tracks through maximizers.

When I used maximizers on my tracks it seemed to sound good on my "beater" system but it would sound harsh on my "good" systems no matter what I tried to do to get it to that volume.

With the mixing thing. I think they were skeptical when they came up to the board and I didn't have any cables running like the other students. The "professor" (probably only had like 5 to 10 years more experience than the students) and the other students were pretty shocked how the results were night and day between there station and mine.

Really though this was a ROUGH mix and an anecdotal situation at best. I went to another students house after to check this same rough mix on another system and the snare needed compression (for tone not dynamics) and some other things could have used some processing. It's just that I didn't automatically go for the gear and I was listening very closely to my mix and just trying to get the levels perfect and tone perfect. Everyone else seemed to be doing something else - playing with gear? experimenting?

There are certain default ways to approach a mix and I guess you can just start doing these things by default. Or doing them because everyone else is doing it or you have always done it that way.

I can just tell from previous releases of these albums. Beastie Boys and Beatles for example that they are already compressed and really don't need anymore. They already have that "pop" sound to my ears. It may be from a more moderate era where the compression wasn't ridiculous but they are already very punchy as is.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Well, what does the original artists (Paul, Ringo and family members of John and George) and others who originally worked on the records in the 1960's think of the final results? I think that’s very important...at least to me as an artist. On the other hand, if you tweak something too much, your work will have turned into something different in sound than what was originally released. We won’t know if that’s the case until these sets are released.

Perhaps the original records recorded at 24 bit / 192 kHz and the wavs put to either DVD-A or DVD-V might make for a better experience than new CDs if we don't get official Hi-Rez releases. But I am looking forward to these box sets and hope some new 5.1 mixes from this material comes our way.

 

[Key]

Well, what does the original artists (Paul, Ringo and family members of John and George) and others who originally worked on the records in the 1960's think of the final results? I think that’s very important...at least to me as an artist. On the other hand, if you tweak something too much, your work will have turned into something different in sound than what was originally released. We won’t know if that’s the case until these sets are released.

Perhaps the original records recorded at 24 bit / 192 kHz and the wavs put to either DVD-A or DVD-V might make for a better experience than new CDs if we don't get official Hi-Rez releases. But I am looking forward to these box sets and hope some new 5.1 mixes from this material comes our way.

I think the problem with changing things after the fact is even if all the original artists are accounted for you still could mess up and take something out that you originally intended to be in the mix.

With pop songs I think it's all the nuances that are the hardest things to remember. All the little things you do to the song to refine it. The skeleton of the song and the basics of how it was played are easy to remember looking back at things, but little details like making the strings buzz or squeak a certain way the dynamics in your picking/strumming hand etc... These are not easy things to document let alone remember.

Yeah I am pretty sure they are sitting on the hi res for another release. If they will be processed the same way or not is not as easy to guess at.

I expect to be in the minority about the specifics of removing artifacts. The average listener will probably like the songs better click and pop free. I just think a lot of these "artifacts" are purposeful or as much a part of the recordings as anything else that could be perceived as a flaw in the recordings. I don't know where to draw the line so I would rather they not get into that territory.

 

[ChristopherLees]

actually if people are happy with all the previous Beatles releases...then all they are really getting new in stereo is

Misery
There's a Place
Sie Leibt Dich
I should have known better

a total of 4 tracks...


and in mono the new stuff you will get is

2 tracks from Rubber Soul
12 tracks from Revolver
All of Sgt pepper
All of White album
the mono single mix of Get back/Don't Let me down (I could be wrong but I think the singles box has the stereo mix from memory)


and if they wanted to add in stuff
mono mix of "It's only a northern song"....after all they gave us a fake stereo version of it for years , but the yellow sub mono lp is just a reduction mix of the stereo tape... so we have never actually had the normal mono mix un-electronically reprocessed for stereo

and a stereo mix of "you know my name look up the number"...which we nearly got completed in stereo on anthology 3
(except that they edited parts of it out and added unheard of parts back in)

and perhaps "tomorrow never knows" from XEX 606-1...

All other Beatles mono and stereo mixes are available from EMI/Capitol

 

[Eggplant]

With pop songs I think it's all the nuances that are the hardest things to remember. All the little things you do to the song to refine it. The skeleton of the song and the basics of how it was played are easy to remember looking back at things, but little details like making the strings buzz or squeak a certain way the dynamics in your picking/strumming hand etc... These are not easy things to document let alone remember.

I have never agreed more with a post here.

The artists, producer, and engineer agonize over the littlest thing during mixdown, sometimes for days. When the result is a hit record, or a classic, it's pretty hard to argue with it. And so easy to come in years later and think you can improve on it in a few hours. I know -- I've been guilty myself.
But even small changes can decimate the character and soul of a track -- the very things that made it special.

It's not that it's impossible to improve on a classic mix.
But history shows the odds are usually very much against it.