Is Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine just going to be passed by in surround? And why?

[privateuniverse]

In 2018, we got 50th anniversary surround mixes for The Beatles' White Album, Hendrix's Electric Ladyland and Jethro Tull's This Was. The Tull album was recorded on 4-track, while the Beatles album was recorded (mostly) on 8-track and the Hendrix on 12-track. For my money, the best surround mix of the bunch was the Tull album. It showed that even with the limitations of a 4-track recording, in the hands of the right mixer (in this case Steven Wilson) a very satisfying surround mix can be possible.

 

[Quadwreck]

Actually, they started using 8 track halfway through The White Album. Let It Be and Abbey Road were fully done on 8 track.

Starting in 1964, EMI began saving every work tape the Beatles used in the studio, which means that now, years later, they were able to synchronize all the session tapes into a pre-mixdown multi-track hard drive. Every instrument on Sgt Pepper now has its own track, which is why "Love" has a much more discrete mix than they could ever derive from the final 4-track mix-down tape. Most of their albums can be mixed into very good surround mixes, if EMI engineers want to.

 

[windhoek]

And I'm pretty sure Giles Martin once said in an interview that everything is properly catalogued, like 90-99% of everything they ever recorded at Abbey Road is easily locatable - no scavenge hunt required!

 

[MarkerB]

Starting in 1964, EMI began saving every work tape the Beatles used in the studio, which means that now, years later, they were able to synchronize all the session tapes into a pre-mixdown multi-track hard drive. Every instrument on Sgt Pepper now has its own track, which is why "Love" has a much more discrete mix than they could ever derive from the final 4-track mix-down tape. Most of their albums can be mixed into very good surround mixes, if EMI engineers want to.

Wow! This does sound entirely believable. Yet... I've never heard it stated before in so many Beatles multi-channel discussions. Can you provide your source? I tried to Google the subject, and only got a lot of wow and flutter.

When I listen to Sgt Pepper in 5.1, it really does seem like the only instruments brought out of the old stereo mix are the ones that were likely overdubbed later... and thus the ones that happen to remain isolated on their own tracks. The discrete instruments are mainly vocals and lead guitars, and sometimes a piano or such.

My impression might also simply come from Giles Martin attempting to maintain the same feel as the original mixes, only peppering some discrete sounds into the rears.

It does seem like The White Album has more discrete mixing, which might make sense because 8 track started to make a limited appearance then.

Really, I have no idea. Comments?

 

[dghan]

George Martin remixed for stereo in 1987 Help! and Rubber Soul, not Revolver. Both of the new mixes are on the 1987 and 2009 CDs, and the original stereo mixes are on the 2009 mono CDs along with the mono mixes. He also remixed in 1976 the songs used for the American release of Rock 'n' Roll Music. The UK release used the original stereo mixes.

I am pretty sure the DVD and BD releases of A Hard Day's Night, Help!, Magical Mystery Tour, and Yellow Submarine have audio in 5.1.

 

[riskylogic]

I've listened to the Blu Ray a couple of times yesterday, and I believe it's the same mix. No doubt the difference in quality is immense, and there's indeed more separation, but I'm convinced it's the format, and maybe a little more balancing. The score is NOT in 5.1, so if what we've been reading about the 2018 release is correct and not just lost in translation, they are most definitely not the same.

Here's the thing: The 2018 release was supposed to be for the 50th anniversary? Now it's two years later, so where is it? I think someone was just trotting out the 2012 remix or rebalancing as "new" just because they didn't want miss the opportunity to market something on the 50th.

 

[riskylogic]

That sounds like they could have used the same mix but simply turned the rear channels up a couple db relative to the front channels.

It's more than a couple of db, plus I would call that remixing in any case.

 

[MarkerB]

It's more than a couple of db, plus I would call that remixing in any case.

A simple volume change to a track that was already mixed-down? That would technically still fall under "remastering".

I know this is a bit petty.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I know for a fact that there are DAWs that turn the rears down by 3 db by default...

 

[riskylogic]

A simple volume change to a track that was already mixed-down? That would technically still fall under "remastering".

I know this is a bit petty.

Right - I don't think that's it; if you boost just the guitar in the right rear channel then it's mixing.

 

[boxhead]

Starting in 1964, EMI began saving every work tape the Beatles used in the studio, which means that now, years later, they were able to synchronize all the session tapes into a pre-mixdown multi-track hard drive. Every instrument on Sgt Pepper now has its own track, which is why "Love" has a much more discrete mix than they could ever derive from the final 4-track mix-down tape. Most of their albums can be mixed into very good surround mixes, if EMI engineers want to.

Well yes, and no. In many cases when recording to 4 track The Beatles would fill all 4 tracks then bounce these down onto one track on a a new tape. This would the free up 3 more tracks for subsequent overdubbing. In these cases the EMI archives would hold 7 discrete tracks that can be used for surround mixing, or indeed doing a new stereo mix.

The thing is many tracks were not bounced down to a second tape, rather they were captured on one single 4 track tape. In these instances any remixing would be limited by the contents of those 4 tracks.

I've just finished reading a book by Jerry Hammack titled "The Beatles Recording Reference Manual Volume 2 - Help! through Revolver (1965-1966)" It details everything relevant to these recording sessions including instruments, amps, microphones, mixing consoles, tracking machines (tape recorders), engineers, producer etc etc. It includes the detail of exactly what was captured on each track of the 4 track tape.

So taking Paperback Writer as an example the track contents look like this:

Track 1: Guitar 1, Guitar 2, Drums, Tamborine. These were recorded at the same time. The remaining tracks were filled as superimpositions (overdubs)
Track 2: Bass, Backing Vocal 3
Track 3: Vocal 1, Backing Vocal 1
Track 4: Vocal 2, Backing Vocal 2

So any stems to be used for subsequent remixing would be limited to those 4 tracks. This is also a perfect example of why so many Beatles tracks have the instruments on one side and vocals on the other. There are many exceptions to this of course, but listen to the originals and be surprised how late into their recording career this still happened.

 

[riskylogic]

I haven't gotten to MMT yet, but I've been going through the movie 5.1s and YS is way better than either AHDN or Help! The title track for the latter is only one from the first two that sounds like it has anything mixed specifically to the back.

 

[markshan]

A simple volume change to a track that was already mixed-down? That would technically still fall under "remastering".

I know this is a bit petty.

Not petty, accurate. Words have meaning.

 

[riskylogic]

Not petty, accurate. Words have meaning.

Let's suppose the right rear had discrete guitar and nothing but. You could raise or lower the volume during mixing or mastering and it would be the same net result.

 

[markshan]

Let's suppose the right rear had discrete guitar and nothing but. You could raise or lower the volume during mixing or mastering and it would be the same net result.

Dude, I haven't heard it and I was responding to MarkerB, who was defining two terms. You can quit now.

 

[Quadwreck]

Wow! This does sound entirely believable. Yet... I've never heard it stated before in so many Beatles multi-channel discussions. Can you provide your source? I tried to Google the subject, and only got a lot of wow and flutter.

When I listen to Sgt Pepper in 5.1, it really does seem like the only instruments brought out of the old stereo mix are the ones that were likely overdubbed later... and thus the ones that happen to remain isolated on their own tracks. The discrete instruments are mainly vocals and lead guitars, and sometimes a piano or such.

My impression might also simply come from Giles Martin attempting to maintain the same feel as the original mixes, only peppering some discrete sounds into the rears.

It does seem like The White Album has more discrete mixing, which might make sense because 8 track started to make a limited appearance then.

Really, I have no idea. Comments?

Giles Martin said this in an interview, I don't remember what publication. There is no way they could have radically remixed songs for "Anthology" and "Love", bringing in instruments not used in the final original mixes, without synching up all the work tapes. The Yellow Submarine DVD remix has instruments and effects shifting around, which would be impossible if they were buried in the mixdown 4-track tape, they are clearly occupying their own tracks in the master hard drive.

 

[MarkerB]

Giles Martin said this in an interview, I don't remember what publication. There is no way they could have radically remixed songs for "Anthology" and "Love", bringing in instruments not used in the final original mixes, without synching up all the work tapes. The Yellow Submarine DVD remix has instruments and effects shifting around, which would be impossible if they were buried in the mixdown 4-track tape, they are clearly occupying their own tracks in the master hard drive.

Okay, I believe it! I think part of my problem is I haven't been able to listen to "Love" without feeling someone vandalized my childhood. I find it more disheartening than watching Greedo shoot first.

I will, however, watch Yellow Submarine on Blu-ray, and pay attention to the 5.1 mix. I just have to stop being so dazzled by how lovingly the film was restored, long enough to listen more closely.

 

[DaveLaPorte53]

I just watched Yellow Submarine, the credits list 6 track recording, only the three front channels, and rear left, right surround channels, but no Rr,Rl

 

[MarkerB]

I just watched Yellow Submarine, the credits list 6 track recording, only the three front channels, and rear left, right surround channels, but no Rr,Rl

"6 channels" usually means "5.1", which includes the LFE channel. You were expecting 7.1, something that mix is definitely not.

 

[MidiMagic]

One thing might be applicable here: When a movie is made, the tracks are recorded on magnetic film. You can have as many tracks as you have Moviola machine film gates. They remain in sync because the sync is determined by sprocket holes, not tape position. These always remain in sync because the Moviolas are synchronized by sprocket hole count and synchronizing cables between Moviolas.

Each track can have its own reel of film. Unless the film is edited, the tracks stay in sync once started in sync.