eleanor rigby, the new mix
chocolate jesus .-
but...]
on eleanor rigby on the new CD at the point in the tune where he sings:
"father mackenzie writing the [click]words [click] of a sermon that
no[click] one will hear"
anyone else hear those clicks?
then in the line that goes:
"look at him working, darning his socks in *the* night when there's nobody
there" i hear the word "the" being muffled like a bad drop.
also the whole track sounds like the vox are out of sync slightly. slightly
ahead in some places.
is this audible to others ,or am i just carried away with glitch fever?
or is it a bad pressing?
-CJ-
~ "alt.roastbeef.curtains"
For discussion of the benefits of
lunch meat and interior decorating.
Mr.Kite
I'm sure your find some clicks and things,,,,,
chocolate jesus .- <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk> wrote in message
news:newscache$3b0kif$dlb$1...@news.accsoft.com.au...
chocolate jesus
their pedestal and proclaimed that:
>When CDs were first issued, they came with a disclaimer of sorts that stated
>that "limitations of analog technology might be heard from the original source
>tapes."
yeah ok.
but this is defintely not that.
it's not in the original release
and its defintely in the new one.
its simply a botched edit.
as unbelievable as that sounds.
Richard Watkinson
<MrK...@PennyLane.Com> wrote:
> Just maybe the tape is 32 years old....Check out your body that closely
> and
> I'm sure your find some clicks and things,,,
And ticks and clings :-)
--
Richard
__ __ __ __ __ _____________________________________________
|__||_ |_ |/ |\ ||_ |_ /
|__||__ |__ |\ | \||__ |__ /...Ceilidh/Barndance music for all occasions
___________________________/ rwa...@argonet.co.uk
Join the RSPB today
JLS
Mr.Kite skrev i meldingen <_BHG3.373$GV2.8...@news.optonline.net>...
>Just maybe the tape is 32 years old....Check out your body that closely and
>
I' m pretty sure that it isn't bad tape. Those 1" EMI tapes can be stored
longer han CD's....
I beleive it has something to do with digital editing. It sound like the
vocal track has been edited to be in synk with the backing track. Backing
track filled one tape(four tracks) and the bare vocals was/is one another
tape.
Analogue taperecorders has a certain amount of speed variations. It must
have been some digital editing fit music and vocals together.
JLS
JLS
Ric325v59 skrev i meldingen
<19990924075624...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
>When CDs were first issued, they came with a disclaimer of sorts that
stated
>that "limitations of analog technology might be heard from the original
source
>tapes."
That's bullshit.
The limitation on the first CD's was because the techs didn't know how to
make a decent analogue to digital transfer. They are better now(the
equipment too).
A decent taperecorder sounds much better than CD. Better frequency response,
higher resulution, nice natural distortion( I don't mean fuzz).
JLS
Jud McCranie
>The limitation on the first CD's was because the techs didn't know how to
>make a decent analogue to digital transfer.
Very often it was because they just grabbed any tape to make the
CD, rather than getting the best available one.
Jud McCranie
Danny Caccavo
> Ric325v59 skrev i meldingen
> <19990924075624...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
> >When CDs were first issued, they came with a disclaimer of sorts that
> stated
> >that "limitations of analog technology might be heard from the original
> source
> >tapes."
>
> That's bullshit.
> The limitation on the first CD's was because the techs didn't know how to
> make a decent analogue to digital transfer. They are better now(the
> equipment too).
> A decent taperecorder sounds much better than CD. Better frequency response,
> higher resulution, nice natural distortion( I don't mean fuzz).
>
>
> JLS
No, the disclaimer was put on because clicks and things that were never
paid attention to with vinyl would clearly sound like a defect in a CD.
DC
--
Danny Caccavo
"Where's Elvis?"
chocolate jesus .-
Ric325v59 <ric3...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990924123938...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> >limitations of analog technology might be heard from the original source
> >>tapes."
> >
> >but this is defintely not that.
>
did you actually hear what i'm talkng about?
'cos if you did, you'd hear that the clicks are in fact at edit points, not
randomly occurrring.
>It may not have been at the time, but now it is.
say what?
chocolate jesus .-
JLS <jl...@c2i.net> wrote in message
news:pPTG3.478$VY.3...@juliett.dax.net...
exactly JLS.
it's not analogue to digital glitching.
its a glitch in the actual editing of the new mix where single words have
been edited in and the edit points stick out like dogs balls.
and the out of synch is quite bad.
>
>
chocolate jesus .-
Danny Caccavo <dan...@interport.net> wrote in message
news:danielj-2409...@usrts1p130.port.net...
> In article <nYTG3.481$VY.3...@juliett.dax.net>, "JLS" <jl...@c2i.net>
wrote:
>
> > Ric325v59 skrev i meldingen
> > <19990924075624...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
> > >When CDs were first issued, they came with a disclaimer of sorts that
> > stated
> > source
> > >tapes."
> >
> > That's bullshit.
> > The limitation on the first CD's was because the techs didn't know how
to
> > make a decent analogue to digital transfer. They are better now(the
> > equipment too).
> > A decent taperecorder sounds much better than CD. Better frequency
response,
> > higher resulution, nice natural distortion( I don't mean fuzz).
> >
> >
> > JLS
>
> No, the disclaimer was put on because clicks and things that were never
> paid attention to with vinyl would clearly sound like a defect in a CD.
>
> DC
true. but these clicks are not on the original cd.
they are definitely a new addition.
have you heard the bits in question yet danny?
and if so, what do you make of them?
Jeff U.
chocolate jesus .- <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk> wrote in message
> true. but these clicks are not on the original cd.
>
> they are definitely a new addition.
>
> have you heard the bits in question yet danny?
>
> and if so, what do you make of them?
>
>
I don't hear any "clicks" or edits in the Father M line, just the early fade
of HEAR.
Jeff U.
chocolate jesus .-
Jeff U. <opus...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:7shhfh$l2d$1...@news1.fast.net...
ah, the *first* father m line?
Chad Grace
> I don't hear any "clicks" or edits in the Father M line, just the early
fade
> of HEAR.
>
Me too... that fade is pretty glaring, and it's not in the original mix,
either. Why on earth did they do that??
And those clicks, if I'm hearing them right.... maybe my stereo isn't swanky
enough... they seem awfully faint. Nick - I'm probably out of my league
here - but are you positive those are edits and not mouth and/or lip noises,
which may have been sanded down by generation loss in earlier mixes? Anyway,
I have to admit my listening skills are not sophisticated enough to detect
the out-of-syncness. I do, however, hear the drop on "the." That's pretty
obvious.
You know, the main thing that bugs me about this mix, now that I'm really
scrutinizing it, ... I wish there was more separation in the vocals, like on
the original. Especially at the end of the song, where the backing vocals
were originally panned hard left, I miss it.
------------> Chad.
chocolate jesus .-
>
> Jeff U. <opus...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:7shhfh$l2d$1...@news1.fast.net...
> >
> > chocolate jesus .- <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > > true. but these clicks are not on the original cd.
> > >
> > > they are definitely a new addition.
> > >
> > > have you heard the bits in question yet danny?
> > >
> > > and if so, what do you make of them?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> fade
> > of HEAR.
>
at 0:48 thru to 0:51 seconds to be a bit more precise..:)
perhaps it's only my copy of a faulty cd.
Danny Caccavo
jesus .-" <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk>
wrote:
> Danny Caccavo <dan...@interport.net> wrote in message
> news:danielj-2409...@usrts1p130.port.net...
> > In article <nYTG3.481$VY.3...@juliett.dax.net>, "JLS" <jl...@c2i.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ric325v59 skrev i meldingen
> > > <19990924075624...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
> > > >When CDs were first issued, they came with a disclaimer of sorts that
> > > stated
> > > >that "limitations of analog technology might be heard from the original
> > > source
> > > >tapes."
> > >
> > > That's bullshit.
> > > The limitation on the first CD's was because the techs didn't know how
> to
> > > make a decent analogue to digital transfer. They are better now(the
> > > equipment too).
> > > A decent taperecorder sounds much better than CD. Better frequency
> response,
> > > higher resulution, nice natural distortion( I don't mean fuzz).
> > >
> > >
> > > JLS
> >
> > No, the disclaimer was put on because clicks and things that were never
> > paid attention to with vinyl would clearly sound like a defect in a CD.
> >
> > DC
>
>
> true. but these clicks are not on the original cd.
>
> they are definitely a new addition.
>
> have you heard the bits in question yet danny?
>
> and if so, what do you make of them?
Just listened to it.
The clicks sound like mouth clicks, nothing else. I hear them on the
original - which is more difficult because a) vocals are only in one
channel, and b) the tape hiss masks them.
The fade out on "hear" is another. That's just sloppy work on the remix.
I think that it's part of the usual "can't see the forest for the trees"
approach to these remixes. There was probably some "objectional tape hiss"
or something which they were trying to avoid (albeit badly).
The fact that they used no noise at ALL on this stuff really astounds me.
It's as if any tape hiss was a sin. The trick to mixing this stuff is to
try to maintain a consistent level of low hiss, not to eliminate it
entirely.
I don't know how old the engineer was, but his approach was completely
non-musical and non-reverential to me.
The primary importance of remixing is the balance. "Up is louder" and all
that. Once you have the balances where they should be, THEN you see what
else is necessary. It's like those sound guys in clubs who get the drum
sounds - they say, "play the bass drum", and the drummer (or roadie) plays
the bass drum for 5 minutes while the sound guy tweaks it. Then on to the
snare, and so on. There's practially no work done to the overall balance
- it's done to the individual sounds. I'm primarily a studio engineer,
but on the occasional moments that I do live sound, I put up all the
faders, ask the drummer to play the whole kit and the bass player to play,
I get the balances, and do a little tweaking to get the two to gel. I get
the rest of the band in there, balance everything, then if I need to focus
on something, THEN I ask the drummer to hit the snare alone.
This is basic recording technique. It takes years to develop a sense of
balance you can trust.
I remember when I was a general assistant at Record Plant, how I assisted
an engineer one day. I put up a 24track tape for him, and in about 20
seconds he had a quite reasonable balance. I was blown away. I'll always
remember that, because that's what you do - you get the "big picture",
instead of focusing too much on individual items. It took me years until
I could mix and not worry about "geez, do I have enough bass drum, is the
snare sounding right..." - you eventually learn to mix "with your gut".
You are mixing a song, not a bunch of disparate elements.
Unfortunately, the engineer for the YS remixes sounds like he's either a)
really green, or b) has underdeveloped mixing sensibilities. Or both.
Danny Caccavo
> > I don't hear any "clicks" or edits in the Father M line, just the early
> fade
> > of HEAR.
> >
Yes, they are mouth/lip noises.
Scott
Danny Caccavo wrote in message ...
I'm tired of responding to this stuff, but I'll just say that
I am pretty confident that I would not like any remix that
you would make of a Beatle song, Danny.
You really should allow for the fact there are things
that you have no idea about re: what's on those multi-track tapes.
You have not heard them, Danny. You are like the backseat driver who
has never driven a car. I understand you have experience in the industry,
but you do NOT know the specific circumstances of whatever deck of cards has
been
dealt by the reality of what's on the multi-tracks.
Your characterization of the Abbey Road engineers as being "really
green" or having "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" I find incredibly
irritating. The Yellow Submarine Remixes are possibly the most loving,
careful, reverent, and expensive remixing of a catalog item ever, done
with input from some of the people who were around when the recordings
were originally made.
Your arrogance in implying that the Abbey Road engineers involved in the
YS remixes don't even have "basic recording technique" that took you
"years to develop" is laughable. I realize that you state this is your
opinion, and you have stated
that it sounds completely "non-musical" to YOU, but let me just say that I
doubt even the greatest producers in the world would make such a statement
without allowing for the usual fact that there is SOME degree of difference
of opinion, and that the work is not lousy just because they would not have
done it
that way. I can't imagine any great producer in his right mind claiming
that the
Abbey Road engineers have "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" based on the
work
from the Yellow Submarine Songtrack (even if said producer didn't like the
mixes).
Clearly, the only remix of the Beatle catalog that would be any good to you
is
your OWN remix of the Beatle catalog. I, for one, am glad you won't have
the
opportunity.
Luke Pacholski
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Your characterization of the Abbey Road engineers as being "really
>green" or having "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" I find incredibly
>irritating. The Yellow Submarine Remixes are possibly the most loving,
>careful, reverent, and expensive remixing of a catalog item ever, done
>with input from some of the people who were around when the recordings
>were originally made.
Sorry...as always, I'd say that honor would have to go to Bob Irwin...
Luke
Scott
>rudimentary housekeeping studio chores that seem to have been badly
>neglected on this occasion.
You are right, it is difficult to account for, but because we do not have
the facts.
My point is that your *assumption* that they are idiots is an
assumption. It's entirely likely that there is something going on that you
and
I are not aware of, as they are not idiots.
Scott
With what remix?
paramucho
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I'm tired of responding to this stuff, but I'll just say that
>I am pretty confident that I would not like any remix that
>you would make of a Beatle song, Danny.
>You really should allow for the fact there are things
>that you have no idea about re: what's on those multi-track tapes.
>You have not heard them, Danny. You are like the backseat driver who
> has never driven a car. I understand you have experience in the industry,
>but you do NOT know the specific circumstances of whatever deck of cards has
>been
>dealt by the reality of what's on the multi-tracks.
Your analogy is incorrect. Danny is like a backseat driver who *has*
driven a car. By your analogy it is just a different make of car.
If one were to follow your rules as given above then there would be no
discussion of the process at all permitted.
>Your characterization of the Abbey Road engineers as being "really
>green" or having "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" I find incredibly
>irritating.
If you disagree then why not just offer counter arguments rather than
attack someone personally? It's not always a good idea to write and
post when one is "incredibly irritated": that's clearly your problem
rather than DC's.
>The Yellow Submarine Remixes are possibly the most loving,
>careful, reverent, and expensive remixing of a catalog item ever, done
>with input from some of the people who were around when the recordings
>were originally made.
Why do you say that it is the "most loving, careful, reverent and
expensive" remixing task of a catalog item ever? Have I missed
something on this topic? Where did you get this information.
>I can't imagine any great producer in his right mind claiming that the
>Abbey Road engineers have "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" based on the
>work from the Yellow Submarine Songtrack (even if said producer didn't like the
>mixes).
>Clearly, the only remix of the Beatle catalog that would be any good to you is
>your OWN remix of the Beatle catalog. I, for one, am glad you won't have the
>opportunity.
If you think DC is overstating his case then why not argue with facts
rather than getting on a high horse? The RMB is a chat group where
people regularly express their opinions. That's what it's for.
Here are the credentials of some engineers engaged on the project. You
can find this information at http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/indexpm.html
Peter Cobbin ran the effort:
Peter Cobbin joined the team at Abbey Road Studios as a Senior
Recording Engineer in 1995. Having studied electronic engineering
and music, Peter originally trained as a Music Engineer at EMI
Sydney, then became an independent freelance Engineer and Producer,
working on a variety of projects throughout Australia.
Currently specialising in 5.1 surround mixing and recording, music
for film and various fusions of pop, rock, jazz and orchestral
music, Peter has worked on a plethora of high profile recordings.
He was assisted by Paul Hicks and Mirek Stiles. These are either
external engineers or very recent employees as they are not listed.
They may be junior staff.
Peter Mew and Steve Rooke are thanked:
Peter Mew - remastering
Peter, an Abbey Road veteran, joined the Studios in 1965. Originally
a Tape Operator, he moved on to become a Recording Engineer in 1967
and a CD Prep Engineer in 1987. For the past 10 years Peter has
specialised in Digital Remastering
Steve Rooke - mastering
Steve joined Abbey Road Studios in 1983 as a Mastering Engineer.
Steve began his career at IBC Studios as a Trainee/ Assistant
Mastering Engineer then moved to Strawberry Mastering where he spent
five years as a Mastering Engineer.
Constantly keeping up to date with the latest and greatest
technology, Steve works with a Sonic Solutions hard disc editing
system as well as analogue (via the original EMI TG 12410 transfer
desk) and digital equipment.
DC is not alone in expressing the opinion that the mixes are below
par.
I find the remixes fascinating. The individual sounds that make up the
recording are, in general, much more easily followed. The engineers
have fairly faithfully reproduced the same overall balance of major
aural events. But, I think the overall sound of the mixes is
incredibly messy in places. Listen to the drums, percussion and bass
in "Too Much" from the 3:40 mark on. They may have been careful and
reverent. That does not ensure success.
I think it's interesting to note that no "Producer" seems to have been
involved in the operation.
--
ian
|--paramucho------[para...@hammo.com]---[www.beathoven.com]------|
|----[alt.ato]---[alt.non.sequitur]---[rec.music.beatles]----------|
Scott
>driven a car. By your analogy it is just a different make of car.
You've got the idea. It makes all the difference in the world that Danny
has not dealt WITH THESE PARTICULAR tapes, yet assumes that some idiot
faded a vocal because he is deaf, rather than allowing that the vocal may
have
been damaged (or a million other possibilities) because he doesn't fucking
know, does he?
>If one were to follow your rules as given above then there would be no
>discussion of the process at all permitted.
Wrong. I allowed that Danny graciously noted that he was
expressing his opinion. I merely noted, mainly, the two things that you
will
find outlined below.
>If you disagree then why not just offer counter arguments rather than
>attack someone personally? It's not always a good idea to write and
>post when one is "incredibly irritated": that's clearly your problem
>rather than DC's.
The counter-argument was this, you seem to have missed it:
Your arrogance in implying that the Abbey Road engineers involved in the
YS remixes don't even have "basic recording technique" that took you
"years to develop" is laughable. I realize that you state this is your
opinion, and you have stated
that it sounds completely "non-musical" to YOU, but let me just say that I
doubt even the greatest producers in the world would make such a statement
without allowing for the usual fact that there is SOME degree of difference
of opinion, and that the work is not lousy just because they would not have
done it
that way. I can't imagine any great producer in his right mind claiming
that the
Abbey Road engineers have "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" based on the
work
from the Yellow Submarine Songtrack (even if said producer didn't like the
mixes).
>Why do you say that it is the "most loving, careful, reverent and
>expensive" remixing task of a catalog item ever? Have I missed
>something on this topic? Where did you get this information.
Mainly the Mix magazine article.
They spent months on the re-mixes.
They went to great lengths and they took great care.
They have a great reverence for the legacy of Abbey Road.
It's Beatle-approved.
Plus, I've heard them.
>If you think DC is overstating his case then why not argue with facts
>rather than getting on a high horse? The RMB is a chat group where
>people regularly express their opinions. That's what it's for.
Here are the facts again, you missed them:
1. Danny does not know why certain things may have been done.
2. He confuses his own mixing preferences, and they ARE preferences,
with competence.
As for the high horse, you've got to be kidding. Danny's horse trampled
over mine with one hoof, right after swatting the Abbey Road staff with
it's smelly tail.
>Here are the credentials of some engineers engaged on the project. You
>can find this information at http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/indexpm.html
I am well aware of this. What is your point?
Scott
>>people regularly express their opinions. That's what it's for.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, that's what I was doing too.
Luke Pacholski
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>With what remix?
Byrds, Simon & Garfunkel...
Luke
Scott
Do you mean the Byrds Box Set?
The Byrds CD Reissues weren't remixed, were they?
A few selected tunes from the Box Set were remixed, right?
How would you rate the complexity of re-mixing those
several 8-track recordings done in an American studio
versus those 4-track Abbey Road recordings
from the YS Songtrack? Were those American recordings
pretty straightforward?
And why do you think the Byrds remixes are so outstanding?
Just asking, I'm really interested.
paramucho
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Your analogy is incorrect. Danny is like a backseat driver who *has*
>>driven a car. By your analogy it is just a different make of car.
>
>You've got the idea. It makes all the difference in the world that Danny
>has not dealt WITH THESE PARTICULAR tapes, yet assumes that some idiot
>faded a vocal because he is deaf, rather than allowing that the vocal may
>have
>been damaged (or a million other possibilities) because he doesn't fucking
>know, does he?
Again, you're saying that opinions should not be expressed until one
knows all the details? A good percentage of the debate in RMB deals in
issues where there are unknowns.
But I return to your analogy: are you saying that the Abbey Road
engineers faced problems with these tapes that were unique to the
Beatles tapes? I fail to see between thirty year old London tapes and
thirty year old New York tapes. Surely they have pretty much the same
range of problems.
>>If one were to follow your rules as given above then there would be no
>>discussion of the process at all permitted.
>
>Wrong. I allowed that Danny graciously noted that he was
>expressing his opinion. I merely noted, mainly, the two things that you
>will
>find outlined below.
You hardly "allowed that Danny..." was stating an opinion: that was
lip service. Likewise, you did not "merely note" anything: you mauled
him.
>>If you disagree then why not just offer counter arguments rather than
>>attack someone personally? It's not always a good idea to write and
>>post when one is "incredibly irritated": that's clearly your problem
>>rather than DC's.
>The counter-argument was this, you seem to have missed it:
>
>Your arrogance in implying that the Abbey Road engineers involved in the
>YS remixes don't even have "basic recording technique" that took you
>"years to develop" is laughable. I realize that you state this is your
>opinion, and you have stated
>that it sounds completely "non-musical" to YOU, but let me just say that I
>doubt even the greatest producers in the world would make such a statement
>without allowing for the usual fact that there is SOME degree of difference
>of opinion, and that the work is not lousy just because they would not have
>done it
>that way. I can't imagine any great producer in his right mind claiming
>that the
>Abbey Road engineers have "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" based on the
>work
>from the Yellow Submarine Songtrack (even if said producer didn't like the
>mixes).
Your counter-argument reduces to this:
1. You (DC) are arrogant because you imply incompetence...
2. You state this as an opinion and that it sounds unmusical to you
3. Any great producer would allow for some difference of opinion
4. No great producer would infer incompetence based on opinion of such
5. Repeats 4
To summarise, you say that he shouldn't say they are incompetent just
because he doesn't like the mixes. Fine. Why get irritated?
>>Why do you say that it is the "most loving, careful, reverent and
>>expensive" remixing task of a catalog item ever? Have I missed
>>something on this topic? Where did you get this information.
>
>Mainly the Mix magazine article.
>They spent months on the re-mixes.
>They went to great lengths and they took great care.
>They have a great reverence for the legacy of Abbey Road.
>It's Beatle-approved.
>Plus, I've heard them.
Thanks for that information. I'm sure they did take great care etc.
That doesn't mean they got it right. Many people here who also have
great reverence for the Beatles have said as much as Danny has. I
thought the mixes were great the first time I heard them. I like them
less and less with every rehearing (and not because of some
nostalgia). Are we supposed to say they are "great mixes" when we
think they are not?
If you've heard them, then where do you think DC is factually wrong in
his evaluation of the mixes?
>>If you think DC is overstating his case then why not argue with facts
>>rather than getting on a high horse? The RMB is a chat group where
>>people regularly express their opinions. That's what it's for.
>
>Here are the facts again, you missed them:
>
>1. Danny does not know why certain things may have been done.
>2. He confuses his own mixing preferences, and they ARE preferences,
> with competence.
This restates your case as above. I still see no reason for you to
become abusive in expressing them.
By counter-argument and "facts" I was referring more to you addressing
the actual issues he raises. A dialogue sometimes help clear up
matters which are in dispute.
>As for the high horse, you've got to be kidding. Danny's horse trampled
>over mine with one hoof, right after swatting the Abbey Road staff with
>it's smelly tail.
Did Danny attack you in a post in the RMB as you have attacked him?
>>Here are the credentials of some engineers engaged on the project. You
>>can find this information at http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/indexpm.html
>
>
>I am well aware of this. What is your point?
I'm trying to move the debate toward facts rather than opinions. I'm
not sure that other readers are aware of the engineers credentials.
Can you fill in the missing information: who are Paul Hicks and Mirek
Stiles, and what were their roles?
Don Rife
Scott <sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7sip5f$lhd$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
>
> I'm tired of responding to this stuff, but I'll just say that
> I am pretty confident that I would not like any remix that
> you would make of a Beatle song, Danny.
>
>
>
>
From what I've read from Danny here in rmb not only do I agree but I think
he would be an excellant choice to help remix the Beatles catalog. Danny is
familiar with how the original recordings sound and would be true to the
original mixes. What was done with the bass on the "Hey Bulldog" remix was a
big mistake. The bass was what drove the song for me. Why is the vocal be
out
of sync on "Eleanor Rigby"? I wish someone from Apple or EMI would read
what
Danny has written here and would review the new mix. If they have ears they
would
realize Danny is right on the money in his criticism of the remixed YS.
Don
Luke Pacholski
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Do you mean the Byrds Box Set?
Nope.
>The Byrds CD Reissues weren't remixed, were they?
Yes, they were. Excluding a few cuts here and there (Turn Turn Turn, in
particular, in which case the multitrack is missing), Mr. Tambourine Man,
TTT, 5D, and Younger Than Yesterday were all remixed from the session
tapes. I'm not sure, but the later CDs may be remixed as well.
>A few selected tunes from the Box Set were remixed, right?
Yes.
>How would you rate the complexity of re-mixing those
>several 8-track recordings done in an American studio
>versus those 4-track Abbey Road recordings
>from the YS Songtrack? Were those American recordings
>pretty straightforward?
I really don't know - I didn't do any remixing on either of them. However,
it would seem Bob Irwin & co. paid a lot more attention to detail and
sound/echo/etc than the Beatles people. Irwin's philosophy is it was good
the first time - just clean it up a bit.
>And why do you think the Byrds remixes are so outstanding?
Well, I think the S&G remixes are even better, but... The sound quality is
great on all of them, and they still retain that '60s sound to them.
Compare an unremixed track on the box set (say, I'll Feel A Whole Lot
Better) to it's remixed version on the remastered CD. The remix is great.
Luke
Scott
>knows all the details? A good percentage of the debate in RMB deals in
>issues where there are unknowns.
Express away. And no, that is not what I am saying.
This is what I am saying:
It is *my opinion* that *Danny's opinion* that an engineer is an amateur
beause of something that he considers to be an error, which may in fact not
be an error at all, because Danny does not have all the facts and cannot
possibly
have all the facts, is ARROGANT and UNFAIR. But of course he should be able
to
express his opinion.
Sorry if my opinion seems unreasonable to you.
So express away. I am not sure where I said opinions should not be
expressed.
But be prepared to have your opinions examined in a newsgroup.
I am saying that this particular opinion of Danny's is wrongheaded and,
frankly, I find it very irritating.
Surely you would not want someone to come to this conclusion about you
(incompetence) if they had no idea what they were talking about (didn't have
all the facts)?
Danny has every right to express his opinions without all the facts. But I
will say that the conclusions he DOES COME TO, without all the facts, tells
me he is arrogant and thinks he
knows better no matter what.
>But I return to your analogy: are you saying that the Abbey Road
>engineers faced problems with these tapes that were unique to the
>Beatles tapes?
I am saying that in this case Danny has seemingly has not even recognized
that there
may have been problems with the tapes. He assumes a quickly faded vocal is
a boner pulled by someone who apparantly can't hear. His eagerness to maul
the Abbey Road proffessionals unfairly, makes him arrogant to me.
I fail to see between thirty year old London tapes and
>thirty year old New York tapes. Surely they have pretty much the same
>range of problems.
I'm sure there are a finite range of problems. Does somebody have a magical
fix for, say, a vocal dropout where there is no comparable sound to
drop in? How much remixing do you think has been done of thirty year old
tapes? And yes, I think the Abbey Road recordings are probably harder to
recreate from the original multi-tracks than say a typical recording made in
New York
from the same era, for a number of reasons. But the main point is that
Danny does
not account for particular problems that may have been encountered. He just
assumes
these professionals are fools.
>You hardly "allowed that Danny..." was stating an opinion: that was
>lip service. Likewise, you did not "merely note" anything: you mauled
>him.
But I was fair, at least. I'll stand by my opinion that it is very
irritating to see someone
unfairly rip into these guys and come to those conclusions when he doesn't
account for or know the particular problems that were encountered in
remixing particular songs.
And I find Danny's opinion that a mix that isn't exactly how he would have
done it
shows "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" on the part of the professional
who made the mix to be particulary irritating and arrogant. I'm sure
there's a point where a mix
is incompetent. But the mixes on YS Songtrack? That's insane. I don't
care what his credentials are. That's arrogant. And because he's actually
in the industry that's an especially foolish thing to say.
>>>If you disagree then why not just offer counter arguments rather than
>>>attack someone personally
>Your counter-argument reduces to this:
>1. You (DC) are arrogant because you imply incompetence...
>2. You state this as an opinion and that it sounds unmusical to you
>3. Any great producer would allow for some difference of opinion
>4. No great producer would infer incompetence based on opinion of such
>5. Repeats 4
OK good, you now recognize there WAS a counter argument, and you just
overlooked half of my post when you said "why not just offer counter
arguments".
Your characterization of my counter-argument is incomplete and a little
off by the way.
>To summarise, you say that he shouldn't say they are incompetent just
>because he doesn't like the mixes. Fine. Why get irritated?
Great, I take it we agree on this. As for the irritation being "my
problem", I would put forth that it's an at least somewhat common human
trait to be put off by those who belittle those who don't comply with their
own views on a subjective topic. Frankly, mixing is subjective. Maybe I
don't like the way Daniel Lanois makes things sound, but I'd be hard pressed
to call him incompetent. I'm sure I wouldn't like what Danny would do with
a mix, but I'm calling into question his arrogance, not his competence. And
yes, it irritates me. Sorry if you can't understand that / don't think it
should be expressed / whatever.
Now, as it seems you agree with me, what is your preoccupation with my
irritation all about?
>Are we supposed to say they are "great mixes" when we
>think they are not?
Of course not. Why do you keep trying to attribute such sentiments to me
with
questions like this? As for what I WAS saying, you KNOW because we've
covered
it a million different ways and you do seem to agree with me. You just
don't like
that I was irritated by it.
>>Here are the facts again, you missed them:
>>1. Danny does not know why certain things may have been done.
>>2. He confuses his own mixing preferences, and they ARE preferences,
>> with competence.
>
>This restates your case as above. I still see no reason for you to
>become abusive in expressing them.
Well when you keep trying to misstate what I have said via your questions
and when you insist that I haven't made any counter-arguments when in fact I
have, there is
good reason to keep expressing my case. The reason is that you keep asking
for it and or keep misunderstanding / mischaracterizing it. So I restate.
Abusive?, please. You've requested the information.
Scott
>I really don't know - I didn't do any remixing on either of them. However,
>it would seem Bob Irwin & co. paid a lot more attention to detail and
>sound/echo/etc than the Beatles people. Irwin's philosophy is it was good
>the first time - just clean it up a bit.
Yeah, but, there was no bouncing down on those 8-tracks right?
No massive work (compression, eq) done back in the 60's to get
a decent mix from a 4-track that contained a pre-mix bounce down of several
tracks onto
one of the 4-tracks, right?
No massive unorthodox song by song experimentation in sound and gimmicks
and recording techniques to recreate, right? Most of those early Byrds
tunes have the same
sound, don't they? Don't they all have the same echo? No tracks to sync
up,
right?
What I'm getting at is that I'm guessing it was a pretty straightforward and
cheap
undertaking to remix those. And I thought the CD reissuses were only
remastered.
I'm guessing all the sound is right on those tapes, and they were pretty
easy to do.
And I'm listening to the remix of "Mr. Tambouine Man" right now and it's
pretty tinny to my ear.
Scott
I, for one, will be listening to the remixed "Hey Bulldog" and
"Eleanor Rigby" from now on, thank you very much.
Luke Pacholski
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yeah, but, there was no bouncing down on those 8-tracks right?
Not that I'm aware of.
>No massive work (compression, eq) done back in the 60's to get
>a decent mix from a 4-track that contained a pre-mix bounce down of several
>tracks onto
>one of the 4-tracks, right?
Not sure what you're getting at there...
>No massive unorthodox song by song experimentation in sound and gimmicks
>and recording techniques to recreate, right? Most of those early Byrds
>tunes have the same
>sound, don't they? Don't they all have the same echo? No tracks to sync
>up,
>right?
The sync up shouldn't be an issue. Anyone with a computer/workstation and
a decent set of ears can do a sync up. That's just inexcusable.
I'd guess those Byrds tracks have mostly the same echo - but then again,
so did the Beatles tracks. I'm pretty sure they weren't changing things
around in the echo chamber...
As for "sound and gimmicks", Eleanor Rigby is very straightforward. Dito
for Nowhere Man, Hey Bulldog and Think For Yourself, if not others as
well... 5D and YTY both have songs with effects that would be hard to get
right.
>What I'm getting at is that I'm guessing it was a pretty straightforward and
>cheap
>undertaking to remix those. And I thought the CD reissuses were only
>remastered.
As before, most everything was remixed. There was an article in ICE when
the CDs came out about it...
And besides, what does it matter? There's no excuse for the strings and
vocals being out of sync with each other. And I don't know what could have
been on the tape that would have warrented an early fade on that line. If
it was a noise on the tape, they seemed to find a way to fix it in 1966.
If it was a dropout, why would they fade out the track?
>I'm guessing all the sound is right on those tapes, and they were pretty
>easy to do.
As opposed to sound *not* on the tapes?
>And I'm listening to the remix of "Mr. Tambouine Man" right now and it's
>pretty tinny to my ear.
Are you listening to the remix on the box set or the MTM CD? The box set
mix is pretty poor (not done by Bob Irwin). As for the MTM CD, the song
has never sounded better. And anyway, that song was recorded well before
the rest of the LP - other tracks like I'll Feel A Whole Lot Better have a
better sound to them...
Getting back to YS - there are some things that were just plain dumb. Sync
problems on Eleanor Rigby. Heavy handed fading. Not getting the echo
right. Not getting that "gel" between Sgt. Pepper and With A Little
Help...
Luke
Scott
>The sync up shouldn't be an issue. Anyone with a computer/workstation and
>a decent set of ears can do a sync up. That's just inexcusable.
Are you assuming the two different machines were running at exactly the same
speed at all times? Clearly this is a greater undertaking than slapping on
an 8-track?
>I'd guess those Byrds tracks have mostly the same echo - but then again,
>so did the Beatles tracks. I'm pretty sure they weren't changing things
>around in the echo chamber... As for "sound and gimmicks", Eleanor Rigby
>is very straightforward.
C'mon, it is not "straightforward" to go back to seperate multitracks from
different
machines to reassemble and remix. When has this ever been done extensively?
Do you
not agree with Peter Cobbin when he says it was a radical undertaking to do
this?
Dito
>for Nowhere Man,
I don't think so. What DID they do to get that sound out of the vocals on
the mix?
I still say that it was very tricky to seperate those vocals, as it sounds
to me like
there is a John, Paul and George vocal track, and a John vocal track. It
sounds
to me like they had to very carefully artificially split the JPG vocal track
into stereo,
lower the volume slightly on the left track, and add the john vocal to the
left track.
Listen to those lalalalala's, it doesn't sound like they were recorded
twice. It's my opinion
that they did such a good job that it does indeed sound like the vocals were
recorded
twice by all three. If this had been an 8-track recording it might have
been a lot simpler.
Hey Bulldog
Much better than the original mix, no?
It sounds great even though most of the instruments are on one track.
and Think For Yourself, if not others as
>well... 5D and YTY both have songs with effects that would be hard to get
>right.
I'm thinking that the Beatles recorded in odd and experimental ways
(strange combinations of instruments on one track, etc) that makes
them more difficult to assemble into a good stereo mix. I'm guessing they
did a lot more experimentation in the MIX stage that is hard to recreate.
>And I don't know what could have
>been on the tape that would have warrented an early fade on that line. If
>it was a noise on the tape, they seemed to find a way to fix it in 1966.
Well it would have happened subsequent to 1966.
>If it was a dropout, why would they fade out the track?
To make it less noticeable?
>>I'm guessing all the sound is right on those tapes, and they were pretty
>>easy to do.
>
>As opposed to sound *not* on the tapes?
As opposed to the sounds being altered in the mixing process.
>>And I'm listening to the remix of "Mr. Tambouine Man" right now and it's
>>pretty tinny to my ear.
Not getting that "gel" between Sgt. Pepper and With A Little
>Help...
Well what is your solution? On the original the guitar is front and center
and that's why it gels into the next song. Would you have put the guitar
up front and then panned it over to the left when the song got going? Of
course it's
going to sound different with everything positioned differently. This is
the
forest for the trees thing. I'll take the new mix anyday. I don't even
notice this anymore.
It's just different, not worse.
Luke Pacholski
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Are you assuming the two different machines were running at exactly the same
>speed at all times? Clearly this is a greater undertaking than slapping on
>an 8-track?
No, they don't need to be. You put both tapes on a workstation, then sync
them up from there. I've done it. It's not very hard. It's not a matter of
running two tapes at exactly the same speed at the same time...
>C'mon, it is not "straightforward" to go back to seperate multitracks from
>different
>machines to reassemble and remix. When has this ever been done extensively?
Ron Furmanek did it quite a bit in the early '90s... Pet Sounds was
recently remixed in stereo in this manner, along with other various Beach
Boys tracks.
>Do you
>not agree with Peter Cobbin when he says it was a radical undertaking to do
>this?
Getting the right balances, mixes, etc from the final tape - yes, that's
quite an undertaking. Simply getting the tapes sync'd up correctly - no,
that should not be a problem.
>I don't think so. What DID they do to get that sound out of the vocals on
>the mix?
>I still say that it was very tricky to seperate those vocals, as it sounds
>to me like
>there is a John, Paul and George vocal track, and a John vocal track. It
>sounds
>to me like they had to very carefully artificially split the JPG vocal track
>into stereo,
>lower the volume slightly on the left track, and add the john vocal to the
>left track.
>Listen to those lalalalala's, it doesn't sound like they were recorded
>twice. It's my opinion
>that they did such a good job that it does indeed sound like the vocals were
>recorded
>twice by all three. If this had been an 8-track recording it might have
>been a lot simpler.
Hmm. Sounds to me like they just took two vocal tracks and split them left
and right. Nothing too tough.
>Hey Bulldog
>Much better than the original mix, no?
>It sounds great even though most of the instruments are on one track.
No. They screwed up the bass sound. Maybe slightly more clear overall, but...
>Well it would have happened subsequent to 1966.
How would a noise get *on* a track after 1966?
>>If it was a dropout, why would they fade out the track?
>
>To make it less noticeable?
Hmm. Do a fade out to mask a dropout? That doesn't make sense. The volume
is already dropping - what good does fading the track out do?
>As opposed to the sounds being altered in the mixing process.
I highly doubt the effects on the Byrds tracks were recorded right onto
the multitracks. Unless your name was Phil Spector, effects like echo are
generally added at the mixing stage.
>Well what is your solution? On the original the guitar is front and center
>and that's why it gels into the next song. Would you have put the guitar
>up front and then panned it over to the left when the song got going? Of
>course it's
>going to sound different with everything positioned differently. This is
>the
>forest for the trees thing. I'll take the new mix anyday. I don't even
>notice this anymore.
What guitar? I'm talking about the edit between Sgt. Pepper and With A
Little Help... On the original, the crowd noise masks the edit very well,
and stays up till just after the vocal starts. On the remix, the crowd
noise does not mask the edit well at all, and it fades out too quickly.
>It's just different, not worse.
IMO, it's worse...
Luke
RuBBRSoul6
You've been throwing around the word
*Arrogance* like you know something
about it. What exactly are your
*credentials* backing up what your spouting off about dude?? -Stan
Scott
same
>>speed at all times? Clearly this is a greater undertaking than slapping
on
>>an 8-track?
>
>No, they don't need to be. You put both tapes on a workstation, then sync
>them up from there. I've done it. It's not very hard. It's not a matter of
>running two tapes at exactly the same speed at the same time...
NO I mean when they were recorded originally.
>>C'mon, it is not "straightforward" to go back to seperate multitracks from
>>different
>>machines to reassemble and remix. When has this ever been done
extensively?
>
>Ron Furmanek did it quite a bit in the early '90s... Pet Sounds was
>recently remixed in stereo in this manner, along with other various Beach
>Boys tracks.
That's hardly extensive.
>>Do you
>>not agree with Peter Cobbin when he says it was a radical undertaking to
do
>>this?
>
>Getting the right balances, mixes, etc from the final tape - yes, that's
>quite an undertaking. Simply getting the tapes sync'd up correctly - no,
>that should not be a problem.
That's what I meant, the whole shebang.
>>I don't think so. What DID they do to get that sound out of the vocals on
>>the mix?
>>I still say that it was very tricky to seperate those vocals, as it sounds
>>to me like
>>there is a John, Paul and George vocal track, and a John vocal track. It
>>sounds
>>to me like they had to very carefully artificially split the JPG vocal
track
>>into stereo,
>>lower the volume slightly on the left track, and add the john vocal to the
>>left track.
>>Listen to those lalalalala's, it doesn't sound like they were recorded
>>twice. It's my opinion
>>that they did such a good job that it does indeed sound like the vocals
were
>>recorded
>>twice by all three. If this had been an 8-track recording it might have
>>been a lot simpler.
>
>Hmm. Sounds to me like they just took two vocal tracks and split them left
>and right. Nothing too tough.
Listen again. Those lalalala's sound artificially expanded into stereo.
>>Hey Bulldog
>>Much better than the original mix, no?
>>It sounds great even though most of the instruments are on one track.
>No. They screwed up the bass sound. Maybe slightly more clear overall,
but...
>
>>Well it would have happened subsequent to 1966.
>
>How would a noise get *on* a track after 1966?
Not on, off.
>>>If it was a dropout, why would they fade out the track?
>>
>>To make it less noticeable?
>
>Hmm. Do a fade out to mask a dropout? That doesn't make sense. The volume
>is already dropping - what good does fading the track out do?
It drops it out more gradually and obscures the missing sound.
>>As opposed to the sounds being altered in the mixing process.
>
>I highly doubt the effects on the Byrds tracks were recorded right onto
>the multitracks. Unless your name was Phil Spector, effects like echo are
>generally added at the mixing stage.
But there are far more and stranger mixing effects on the Beatles recordings
which was my point.
>>Well what is your solution? On the original the guitar is front and
center
>>and that's why it gels into the next song. Would you have put the guitar
>>up front and then panned it over to the left when the song got going? Of
>>course it's
>>going to sound different with everything positioned differently. This is
>>the
>>forest for the trees thing. I'll take the new mix anyday. I don't even
>>notice this anymore.
>
>What guitar? I'm talking about the edit between Sgt. Pepper and With A
>Little Help... On the original, the crowd noise masks the edit very well,
>and stays up till just after the vocal starts. On the remix, the crowd
>noise does not mask the edit well at all, and it fades out too quickly.
The guitar that glides from one song to the other right after "Billy
Shears".
How can you miss it?, its front and center on the old mix.
Scott
Well Stan, here is what I am spouting off about:
I would put forth that it's an at least somewhat common human
trait to be put off by those who belittle those who don't comply with their
own views on a subjective topic. Frankly, mixing is subjective. Maybe I
don't like the way Daniel Lanois makes things sound, but I'd be hard pressed
to call him incompetent. I'm sure I wouldn't like what Danny would do with
a mix, but I'm calling into question his arrogance, not his competence. And
yes, it irritates me. Sorry if you can't understand that / don't think it
should be expressed / whatever.
My credentials for noting that it is arrogant and irritating to belittle
those
who don't comply with their own views on a subjective topic are that
I am a human being.
Luke Pacholski
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>NO I mean when they were recorded originally.
What does that have to do with anything?
>>Ron Furmanek did it quite a bit in the early '90s... Pet Sounds was
>>recently remixed in stereo in this manner, along with other various Beach
>>Boys tracks.
>
>That's hardly extensive.
Well, it's been done...
>It drops it out more gradually and obscures the missing sound.
I don't buy it.
>The guitar that glides from one song to the other right after "Billy
>Shears".
> How can you miss it?, its front and center on the old mix.
"Billy Shears" is the start of Sgt. Pepper. That lead guitar you are
talking about starts well after the edit...
Luke
Jud McCranie
>The fact that they used no noise at ALL on this stuff really astounds me.
>It's as if any tape hiss was a sin.
Tape hiss on a first generation 1-inch 4-track shouldn't be
objectional at all, I would think.
Jud McCranie
Scott
>bullshit scott. how the hell would you know?
It was a question, dumbfuck.
>the axiom is that your tracking will expand to fill the number of tracks
>available.
>so it's easily the case that the byrds stuff could have utilised bounces.
>easily.
???????
>> No massive work (compression, eq) done back in the 60's to get
>> a decent mix from a 4-track that contained a pre-mix bounce down of
>several
>> tracks ontoone of the 4-tracks, right?
>again you don't know.
Again, dumbfuck, that's implicit in my question mark.
>and it is highly likely that all those things you mention were in fact
done.
>compressors and eq would *definitely* be in the signal chain.
>they were and still are the very basic studio tool.
Not according to the Mix Magazine article.
>> No massive unorthodox song by song experimentation in sound and gimmicks
>> and recording techniques to recreate, right?
>wrong..;)
?????
>>Most of those early Byrds
>> tunes have the same
>> sound, don't they?
>oh dear, how amateurish is this comment...
>i cannot even begin to delve into the vast chasm of stupidty from whence it
>sprang!
No, you can't, can you.
>>Don't they all have the same echo?
>no way.
>these variables changed all the time.
>> No tracks to sync up, right?
>um, you dont know do you scott?
>by rights there would be just as much work in terms of layering the
>originals and synching them up.
?????
>> What I'm getting at is that I'm guessing it was a pretty straightforward
>and
>> cheap undertaking to remix those.
>the crucial word here is *guessing*.
Um, duh. Hence all the question marks, etc.
You're absolutely brilliant.
>scott, you have a point to a certain extent in regards the case for someone
>complianing about the engineer's abilities.
>but you just go out on a limb with this sort of rubbish guesswork, which
you
>seem to think will uphold your claim if you shout it loud enough.
It's a conversation. I am asking questions because Luke may know the
answers.
>you simply don't have the chops to be talking about this stuff and
>complaining so bitterly and making assumptions as to the state of the byrds
>master tapes etc.
You're an idiot.
>if you don't have the hands on studio experience/knowledge to back it up,
>then you're the back seat driver buddy!
Back what up?
Scott
>you simply don't have the chops to be talking about this stuff and
>complaining so bitterly and making assumptions as to the state of the byrds
>master tapes etc.
I am aware that I do not know the specifics behind the Byrds recordings.
Hence the equivical nature of my assertions, the question marks, etc.
It was my intention to signal that I was not sure by putting forth in this
manner.
Sorry I called you a dumbfuck, but really, it was pretty clear.
chocolate jesus .-
Danny Caccavo <dan...@interport.net> wrote in message
news:danielj-2509...@usrts1p94.port.net...
> In article <newscache$g4hlif$mxk$1...@news.accsoft.com.au>, "chocolate
> jesus .-" <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Danny Caccavo <dan...@interport.net> wrote in message
> > news:danielj-2409...@usrts1p130.port.net...
> > > In article <nYTG3.481$VY.3...@juliett.dax.net>, "JLS" <jl...@c2i.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ric325v59 skrev i meldingen
> > > > <19990924075624...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
> > > > >When CDs were first issued, they came with a disclaimer of sorts
that
> > > > stated
> > > > >that "limitations of analog technology might be heard from the
original
> > > > source
> > > > >tapes."
> > > >
> > > > That's bullshit.
> > > > The limitation on the first CD's was because the techs didn't know
how
> > to
> > > > make a decent analogue to digital transfer. They are better now(the
> > > > equipment too).
> > > > A decent taperecorder sounds much better than CD. Better frequency
> > response,
> > > > higher resulution, nice natural distortion( I don't mean fuzz).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JLS
> > >
> > > No, the disclaimer was put on because clicks and things that were
never
> > > paid attention to with vinyl would clearly sound like a defect in a
CD.
> > >
> > > DC
> >
> >
> > true. but these clicks are not on the original cd.
> >
> > they are definitely a new addition.
> >
> > have you heard the bits in question yet danny?
> >
> > and if so, what do you make of them?
>
> Just listened to it.
>
> The clicks sound like mouth clicks, nothing else. I hear them on the
> original - which is more difficult because a) vocals are only in one
> channel, and b) the tape hiss masks them.
oh god , no they are definitely *not mouth clicks/pops.
no way jose!!
they are edit points for sure danny.
i've never heard clicks like that that were not electronic in origin.
have another listen mate.and picture them as edit points.
i think you'll see what i mean when i descibe them as edits.
(i am glad you guys even hear them. i was begining to think they were
imagination.)
>
> The fade out on "hear" is another. That's just sloppy work on the remix.
>
>
> I think that it's part of the usual "can't see the forest for the trees"
> approach to these remixes. There was probably some "objectional tape hiss"
> or something which they were trying to avoid (albeit badly).
>
> The fact that they used no noise at ALL on this stuff really astounds me.
> It's as if any tape hiss was a sin. The trick to mixing this stuff is to
> try to maintain a consistent level of low hiss, not to eliminate it
> entirely.
wait till you hear the aussie RMB CD submissions.
we'll make you rethink that noise concept from the ground up!
we like our noise down here.....;)
>
> I don't know how old the engineer was, but his approach was completely
> non-musical and non-reverential to me.]
i agree.
especially with the reverential synopsis.
>
> The primary importance of remixing is the balance. "Up is louder" and all
> that. Once you have the balances where they should be, THEN you see what
> else is necessary. It's like those sound guys in clubs who get the drum
> sounds - they say, "play the bass drum", and the drummer (or roadie) plays
> the bass drum for 5 minutes while the sound guy tweaks it. Then on to the
> snare, and so on. There's practially no work done to the overall balance
> - it's done to the individual sounds. I'm primarily a studio engineer,
> but on the occasional moments that I do live sound, I put up all the
> faders, ask the drummer to play the whole kit and the bass player to play,
> I get the balances, and do a little tweaking to get the two to gel. I get
> the rest of the band in there, balance everything, then if I need to focus
> on something, THEN I ask the drummer to hit the snare alone.
exactly.
it's always bugged me how a drummer gets 95% of soundcheck time to go thru
his kit, then five minutes is all the guitars, keys, backing vocals etc get
to quickly get a line level, and not much more.
>
> This is basic recording technique. It takes years to develop a sense of
> balance you can trust.
>
> I remember when I was a general assistant at Record Plant, how I assisted
> an engineer one day. I put up a 24track tape for him, and in about 20
> seconds he had a quite reasonable balance. I was blown away. I'll always
> remember that, because that's what you do - you get the "big picture",
> instead of focusing too much on individual items. It took me years until
> I could mix and not worry about "geez, do I have enough bass drum, is the
> snare sounding right..." - you eventually learn to mix "with your gut".
hear hear!
>
> You are mixing a song, not a bunch of disparate elements.
>
> Unfortunately, the engineer for the YS remixes sounds like he's either a)
> really green, or b) has underdeveloped mixing sensibilities. Or both.
was he british or american?
chocolate jesus .-
Luke Pacholski <lukpac...@lukpac.org> wrote in message
news:lukpac+usenet-2...@trip046-124.resnet.wisc.edu...
> In article <7sip5f$lhd$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Scott"
> <sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >green" or having "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" I find incredibly
> >careful, reverent, and expensive remixing of a catalog item ever,
well it is a bit difficult to account for the blatant and rather obvious
rudimentary housekeeping studio chores that seem to have been badly
neglected on this occasion.
random edit point, clicks and weak definition of individual sounds must
certainly be discussed and examined critically.
i mean hell, if *i* can hear bits of errors, then it's a problem.
chocolate jesus .-
>
> Yeah, but, there was no bouncing down on those 8-tracks right?
bullshit scott. how the hell would you know?
the axiom is that your tracking will expand to fill the number of tracks
available.
so it's easily the case that the byrds stuff could have utilised bounces.
easily.
> No massive work (compression, eq) done back in the 60's to get
> a decent mix from a 4-track that contained a pre-mix bounce down of
several
> tracks ontoone of the 4-tracks, right?
again you don't know.
and it is highly likely that all those things you mention were in fact done.
compressors and eq would *definitely* be in the signal chain.
they were and still are the very basic studio tool.
> No massive unorthodox song by song experimentation in sound and gimmicks
> and recording techniques to recreate, right?
wrong..;)
>Most of those early Byrds
> tunes have the same
> sound, don't they?
oh dear, how amateurish is this comment...
i cannot even begin to delve into the vast chasm of stupidty from whence it
sprang!
>Don't they all have the same echo?
no way.
these variables changed all the time.
> No tracks to sync up, right?
um, you dont know do you scott?
by rights there would be just as much work in terms of layering the
originals and synching them up.
>
> What I'm getting at is that I'm guessing it was a pretty straightforward
and
> cheap undertaking to remix those.
the crucial word here is *guessing*.
scott, you have a point to a certain extent in regards the case for someone
complianing about the engineer's abilities.
but you just go out on a limb with this sort of rubbish guesswork, which you
seem to think will uphold your claim if you shout it loud enough.
you simply don't have the chops to be talking about this stuff and
complaining so bitterly and making assumptions as to the state of the byrds
master tapes etc.
if you don't have the hands on studio experience/knowledge to back it up,
chocolate jesus .-
timeline:
1.scotty posts an "strongly opinionated " and ignorant view.
2.others try to talk to him about it.
3.scotty gets hysterical and abusive.
4. scotty runs off with his knickers in a knot, yelling that everyone is
against him and goes and has a good old fashioned cry in the corner for few
more months.
i take it that in not being able to respond to one of my points, you are in
stage 3 of the infamous but always amusing scotty "i *am not* being a twit"
goolsby cycle?
best regards,
dumbfuck...:)
Scott <sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7sjqpp$s8b$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> >> Yeah, but, there was no bouncing down on those 8-tracks right?
>
> >bullshit scott. how the hell would you know?
>
> It was a question, dumbfuck.
>
> >the axiom is that your tracking will expand to fill the number of tracks
> >available.
> >so it's easily the case that the byrds stuff could have utilised bounces.
> >easily.
>
> ???????
>
> >> No massive work (compression, eq) done back in the 60's to get
> >> a decent mix from a 4-track that contained a pre-mix bounce down of
> >several
> >> tracks ontoone of the 4-tracks, right?
>
> >again you don't know.
>
> Again, dumbfuck, that's implicit in my question mark.
>
> >and it is highly likely that all those things you mention were in fact
> done.
> >compressors and eq would *definitely* be in the signal chain.
> >they were and still are the very basic studio tool.
>
> Not according to the Mix Magazine article.
>
> >> No massive unorthodox song by song experimentation in sound and
gimmicks
> >> and recording techniques to recreate, right?
>
> >wrong..;)
>
> ?????
>
> >>Most of those early Byrds
> >> tunes have the same
> >> sound, don't they?
>
> >oh dear, how amateurish is this comment...
> >i cannot even begin to delve into the vast chasm of stupidty from whence
it
> >sprang!
>
> No, you can't, can you.
>
> >>Don't they all have the same echo?
>
> >no way.
> >these variables changed all the time.
>
> >> No tracks to sync up, right?
>
> >um, you dont know do you scott?
> >by rights there would be just as much work in terms of layering the
> >originals and synching them up.
>
> ?????
>
> >> What I'm getting at is that I'm guessing it was a pretty
straightforward
> >and
> >> cheap undertaking to remix those.
>
> >the crucial word here is *guessing*.
>
> Um, duh. Hence all the question marks, etc.
> You're absolutely brilliant.
>
> >scott, you have a point to a certain extent in regards the case for
someone
> >complianing about the engineer's abilities.
>
> >but you just go out on a limb with this sort of rubbish guesswork, which
> you
> >seem to think will uphold your claim if you shout it loud enough.
>
> It's a conversation. I am asking questions because Luke may know the
> answers.
>
> >you simply don't have the chops to be talking about this stuff and
> >complaining so bitterly and making assumptions as to the state of the
byrds
> >master tapes etc.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> >if you don't have the hands on studio experience/knowledge to back it up,
> >then you're the back seat driver buddy!
>
>
> Back what up?
>
>
>
chocolate jesus .-
> >well it is a bit difficult to account for the blatant and rather obvious
> >rudimentary housekeeping studio chores that seem to have been badly
> >neglected on this occasion.
>
> the facts.
>
>
> My point is that your *assumption* that they are idiots is an
> assumption. It's entirely likely that there is something going on that
you
> and
> I are not aware of, as they are not idiots.
scott, golden rule #6:
if you are going to be obnoxious, at last respond to the right person.
best,
dumbfuck.
paramucho
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>It is *my opinion* that *Danny's opinion* that an engineer is an amateur
>beause of something that he considers to be an error, which may in fact not
>be an error at all, because Danny does not have all the facts and cannot
>possibly
>have all the facts, is ARROGANT and UNFAIR. But of course he should be able
>to
>express his opinion.
>
>Sorry if my opinion seems unreasonable to you.
Let's not go around in circles forever. I just don't see how you draw
your conclusion that it is ARROGANT and UNFAIR, without the all the
facts, to express an opinion on the quality of the mixes. 95% of the
threads here operate without all the facts.
> I'll stand by my opinion that it is very
>irritating to see someone
>unfairly rip into these guys and come to those conclusions when he doesn't
>account for or know the particular problems that were encountered in
>remixing particular songs.
That's a completely valid statement.
>Now, as it seems you agree with me, what is your preoccupation with my
>irritation all about?
The posts in our dialogue have dealt half and half with your
irritation and the mixing process itself. I've learned quite a lot
about the latter. Many thanks.
You snipped one or two of my questions. I repeat one below in case you
missed it.
Danny Caccavo
jud.mccranie(at)mindspring.com wrote:
> dan...@interport.net (Danny Caccavo) wrote:
>
>
> >The fact that they used no noise at ALL on this stuff really astounds me.
> >It's as if any tape hiss was a sin.
>
> Tape hiss on a first generation 1-inch 4-track shouldn't be
> objectional at all, I would think.
>
> Jud McCranie
Exactly.
DC
--
Danny Caccavo
"Where's Elvis?"
Danny Caccavo
> Danny Caccavo wrote in message ...
>
> I'm tired of responding to this stuff, but I'll just say that
> I am pretty confident that I would not like any remix that
> you would make of a Beatle song, Danny.
>
> You really should allow for the fact there are things
> that you have no idea about re: what's on those multi-track tapes.
> You have not heard them, Danny. You are like the backseat driver who
> has never driven a car.
I have driven many cars of this type. I don't have to have driven that
particular car to know what I'm talking about.
I understand you have experience in the industry,
> but you do NOT know the specific circumstances of whatever deck of cards has
> been
> dealt by the reality of what's on the multi-tracks.
I know because of what mixes were produced beforehand.
>
> Your characterization of the Abbey Road engineers as being "really
> green" or having "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" I find incredibly
> irritating. The Yellow Submarine Remixes are possibly the most loving,
> careful, reverent, and expensive remixing of a catalog item ever, done
> with input from some of the people who were around when the recordings
> were originally made.
Paul and George and Ringo are not engineers. And I'd hardly call those
mixes "loving or reverent".
But hey, you have a right to be irritated.
>
> Your arrogance in implying that the Abbey Road engineers involved in the
> YS remixes don't even have "basic recording technique" that took you
> "years to develop" is laughable. I realize that you state this is your
> opinion, and you have stated
> that it sounds completely "non-musical" to YOU, but let me just say that I
> doubt even the greatest producers in the world would make such a statement
> without allowing for the usual fact that there is SOME degree of difference
> of opinion, and that the work is not lousy just because they would not have
> done it
> that way. I can't imagine any great producer in his right mind claiming
> that the
> Abbey Road engineers have "underdeveloped mixing sensibilities" based on the
> work
> from the Yellow Submarine Songtrack (even if said producer didn't like the
> mixes).
I just have a very strong opinion on the subject. Got that? Opinion. OK,
so what if it IS arrogant? So I'm arrogant. I have enough experience as
an engineer to be arrogant about it. I don't think you have enough
experience as an engineer to say that my opinion is "laughable" and to
insult me.
>
> Clearly, the only remix of the Beatle catalog that would be any good to you
> is
> your OWN remix of the Beatle catalog. I, for one, am glad you won't have
> the
> opportunity.
What's bugging you?
I don't understand why you are so hostile about this. And why would the
only remixes that I like have to be MY remixes? Just because I don't like
these?
I'm not against remixing the stuff in principle. I'm just against bad
remixes, or remixes which IN MY OPINION are not as good as the originals.
The new mixes are "cleaner" than the originals and have better fidelity.
But that's the only way in which they are better.
In my opinion.
dc
Danny Caccavo
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Go right ahead. What you don't know won't hurt you.
DC
Danny Caccavo
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> It is *my opinion* that *Danny's opinion* that an engineer is an amateur
> beause of something that he considers to be an error, which may in fact not
> be an error at all, because Danny does not have all the facts and cannot
> possibly
> have all the facts, is ARROGANT and UNFAIR. But of course he should be able
> to
> express his opinion.
Just one thing - the incompetence I referred to was the bad syncing of
Eleanor Rigby. And I stand by that. I don't need to have heard the actual
tapes to know this.
Danny Caccavo
> His eagerness to maul
> the Abbey Road proffessionals unfairly, makes him arrogant to me.
I was not eager to do this. I am very disappointed, and somewhat
heartbroken that they have done such a bad job.
In my opinion.
Danny Caccavo
> And because he's actually
> in the industry that's an especially foolish thing to say.
Oh, so I'm stupid as well.
Get off YOUR high horse, sir.
Danny Caccavo
> Are you assuming the two different machines were running at exactly the same
> speed at all times? Clearly this is a greater undertaking than slapping on
> an 8-track?
The way you hand sync stuff is as follows -
There are two methods.
1) You transfer one tape to the workstation. Then you put a VSO on the
analog machine and varispeed it so it matches the other tape (now on the
workstation). You can do this by panning the submix of the mixdown tape to
one side, and a new rough submix of the original tape to the other side.
Set a "start mark", and adjust the varispeed until the two signals "center
out" in the headphones, then pop it in mono and keep your hand on the
varispeed so that the two "phase" with each other. Very common studio
practice.
or
2) Copy both tapes into the workstation, and electronically varispeed one
to match the other. Will not sound quite as good as method 1, because you
are applying an extra step of dsp (digital signal processing). Also may
not work as well because the speed may fluctuate on the original tape, and
you cannot continuously vary the speed in the workstation.
What surprises me is that they either did not copy the mixed down strings
into the workstation (to use as a guide sync track), or they didn't listen
to it against the original 4 track split of the strings.
Danny Caccavo
> Well what is your solution? On the original the guitar is front and center
> and that's why it gels into the next song. Would you have put the guitar
> up front and then panned it over to the left when the song got going? Of
> course it's
> going to sound different with everything positioned differently.
I would have used ADT on the guitar like on the original to fatten it up,
and carried the applause over (louder) like on the original.
dc
Danny Caccavo
> Hey Bulldog
> Much better than the original mix, no?
> It sounds great even though most of the instruments are on one track.
No, not to me (of course <g>). The vocals don't have that cool adt effect
anymore, and they're loud compared to the track - which makes the track
sound less powerful.
In my opinion.
DC
Danny Caccavo
<sgoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>Are you assuming the two different machines were running at exactly the
> same
> >>speed at all times? Clearly this is a greater undertaking than slapping
> on
> >>an 8-track?
> >
> >No, they don't need to be. You put both tapes on a workstation, then sync
> >them up from there. I've done it. It's not very hard. It's not a matter of
> >running two tapes at exactly the same speed at the same time...
>
> NO I mean when they were recorded originally.
Speed of the machines was not a factor when they originally recorded
them. They filled up the first tape, and bounced to a second machine.
Small speed differences didn't affect them, because they didn't need to go
back to the original tapes.
Danny Caccavo
> Listen again. Those lalalala's sound artificially expanded into stereo.
I'm not quite sure. Yes, they do sound artificially expanded, but they
also sound like more than two voices, which means they doubled them....and
I don't think John's singing them.
It's possible that John's is the only doubled voice (split left and
right), but I'm not sure. There's a point where I hear the left and right
deviate in performance, and it's not John's deviation (so to speak).
Danny Caccavo
jesus .-" <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk>
wrote:
> > The clicks sound like mouth clicks, nothing else. I hear them on the
> > original - which is more difficult because a) vocals are only in one
> > channel, and b) the tape hiss masks them.
>
> oh god , no they are definitely *not mouth clicks/pops.
>
> no way jose!!
>
>
>
> they are edit points for sure danny.
>
> i've never heard clicks like that that were not electronic in origin.
>
> have another listen mate.and picture them as edit points.
Are we talking on the "father McKenzie, writing .....no one will hear"
line? Those still sound like mouth clicks to me.
But if there *are* edits on the vocal track that are new to the cd, I
begin to wonder if they were trying to keep the vocal track in sync by
editing, rather than varispeeding....OY!
chocolate jesus .-
m...
> In article <newscache$6yemif$m25$1...@news.accsoft.com.au>, "chocolate
> jesus .-" <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > > The clicks sound like mouth clicks, nothing else. I hear them on the
> > > original - which is more difficult because a) vocals are only in one
> > > channel, and b) the tape hiss masks them.
> >
> > oh god , no they are definitely *not mouth clicks/pops.
> >
> > no way jose!!
> >
> >
> >
> > they are edit points for sure danny.
> >
> > i've never heard clicks like that that were not electronic in origin.
> >
> > have another listen mate.and picture them as edit points.
>
> line? Those still sound like mouth clicks to me.
yeah, at 0:48 to 0:51 from memory.
they can't be mouth pops.
they are either side of the words or phrases, they are same sound each
ime( yikes, i sound like a UFO fanatic), they sure sound like a digital edit
clunk to me.
and here's the clincher, they are *not there* on the original CD.
i had a pretty close listen to it. (have a listen to the original, see what
you think.)
[if you cant hear 'em in the new one still still, i might rip a five second
mp3 of the bit in question. and one off the old CD for comparison.after all
i might just have a faulty cd.]
>
> But if there *are* edits on the vocal track that are new to the cd, I
> begin to wonder if they were trying to keep the vocal track in sync by
> editing, rather than varispeeding....OY!
nah, that would be too stupid altogether..;\
the synch shoud be a breeze in the digital domain.
getting two tape machines out of synch would be somewhat more
understandable.
but not getting true synch on a digital workstation?
that's too weird for words, especially if we are talking supposedly seasoned
operators.
paramucho
.-" <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk> wrote:
>[if you cant hear 'em in the new one still still, i might rip a five second
>mp3 of the bit in question. and one off the old CD for comparison.after all
>i might just have a faulty cd.]
I doubt it's coincidence. I hear the same things on *my* CD :-)
chocolate jesus......
...
> OK, I was at work today, and I dumped both versions of ER into Protools
> and did some analysis.
>
> 1) Those clicks (very low level) still sound like mouth clicks to me.
>
> BUT -
>
> 2) The vocals are DEFINITELY out of sync - for the whole song.
agreed.
blatantly so in fact.
>
> What I did was the following - I lined up the old and new mix together.
> Now, here's the really interesting part -
>
> Once you line them up, they don't drift.
>
> Which means -
>
> They must have used the Revolver CD as the reference to line things up.
> Two analog passes cannot line up that tightly.
>
> But under close examination, here's what I found.
>
> If I lined them up so that the strings were phasing (a constant, no drift
> phase, which surprised me, as I mentioned above), the vocals were about 30
> milliseconds out of time - the vocals being later on the remix.
>
> Now, the interesting thing - I could hear the speed drift on the vocal
> track (the phasing would be constantly drifting). If it were left to
> drift, it would get further and further out of sync, but....the phase kept
> "reoccuring" - which means that instead of varispeeding the vocals, they
> must have done a number of small edits to keep it in sync. OR they might
> have used time compression, which is the wrong thing to do.
>
> Which lends credence to the opinion that those clicks are edits in the
> vocal, but I didn't hear any "phase jumps" over that section, and IMHO
> they still sound like mouth clicks to me. But if they were going to fix
> the sync in the workstation, it should have been done with SPEED
> correction, not time compression. I've seen several engineers make this
> same mistake. It was not done with speed correction. Not sure if it's time
> compression or edits.
>
> Also, if I listen very closely, I can hear either the no noise process
> "opening and closing" on the lead vocal, or some sort of noise gate. It's
> pretty subtle.
>
> So, the initial gut reaction was right - it's out of sync. It's hard to
> tell by switching back and forth, since it is only 30milliseconds - but
> it's easy to "feel" by listeing to a verse of the original, then a verse
> of the remix. The remix sounds "lazy" by comparison.
>
> There ya go. I stand by my criticism of the Abbey Road engineers.
>
> DC
i think you can take a seat now.
you been standing long enough.....:)
Jud McCranie
>2) The vocals are DEFINITELY out of sync - for the whole song.
Are you sure that it just isn't the syncopation that makes it
sound like that? I checked Complete Scores, and most of the
notes are on the half beat. The last note of phrases, which
normally are on the downbeat of 1 are 1/2 beat earlier.
Jud McCranie
Danny Caccavo
jud.mccranie(at)mindspring.com wrote:
No, no. Nothing to do with that. I lined both mixes up in the
workstation so that the strings were perfectly in sync, and the vocals
were out of sync. If I lined it up so the vocals were in sync, then the
strings were out of sync.
Nowhere Man
> *scratching his head*
hey Nick, I want some royalties here. ;0)
chocolate jesus......
Jud McCranie <jud.mc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4YrvN+u+UcEVnb...@4ax.com...
> dan...@interport.net (Danny Caccavo) wrote:
>
> >2) The vocals are DEFINITELY out of sync - for the whole song.
>
> Are you sure that it just isn't the syncopation that makes it
> sound like that? I checked Complete Scores, and most of the
> notes are on the half beat. The last note of phrases, which
> normally are on the downbeat of 1 are 1/2 beat earlier.
have you hear it jud?
if you have, you'd have to agree that it is way out.
Jud McCranie
>No, no. Nothing to do with that. I lined both mixes up in the
>workstation so that the strings were perfectly in sync, and the vocals
>were out of sync. If I lined it up so the vocals were in sync, then the
>strings were out of sync.
OK, that is the definitive test. I still wonder if what some
people hear as being out of sync is the syncopation.
Jud McCranie
Danny Caccavo
jud.mccranie(at)mindspring.com wrote:
Well, no one ever complained about the original mix in terms of sync..<g>.
And hell, practically all of George H's songs have syncopated melodies...
Danny Caccavo
chocolate jesus......
> dan...@interport.net (Danny Caccavo) wrote:
>
> >No, no. Nothing to do with that. I lined both mixes up in the
> >workstation so that the strings were perfectly in sync, and the vocals
> >were out of sync. If I lined it up so the vocals were in sync, then the
> >strings were out of sync.
>
> OK, that is the definitive test. I still wonder if what some
> people hear as being out of sync is the syncopation.
> Jud McCranie
*scratching his head*....
jud, a syncopation would leave a hole a mile wide in a side by side
analysis.
this is a *synch error*.
anyhow, all the vocal phrases start on 1 , so i don't know where you get
this notion that they syncopate so wildly.
sheesh.
Jud McCranie
>Well, no one ever complained about the original mix in terms of sync..<g>.
But peopel weren't disecting it to detect differences between it
and another version.
Jud McCranie
Luke Pacholski
jud.mccranie(at)mindspring.com wrote:
True. However, many of us (me included) found that the vocals lagged the
first time we heard it. I know I didn't do a comparison...
Luke
chocolate jesus......
--
"Never trust a man in a blue trench coat,
never drive a car when you're dead."
Luke Pacholski <lukpac...@lukpac.org> wrote in message
news:lukpac+usenet-2...@trip046-124.resnet.wisc.edu...
me too.
in the car, in traffic, from a cassette(violation?).
it's bloody obvious if you use your ears.