Beatles Please Please Me Album Stereo Mix- MFSL Version

You seem to assume the pristine "Die Beatles" cut came out and from then on, it was all "mud and bass bloat", but once again, that's not the order of events. The true sequence is more conflicting for the uncompressed tape theory:

The first Beatles LP released in Germany was WTB in November 63. Then Die Beatles came out in febreuary 64, but not the famous rebalanced cut, which was a later edition (another user said a few pages ago it was as late as 1966). So, if they wanted to reissue Die Beatles in 1966, I think it's very unlikely that they asked EMI to send a different tape. Why would they? The album was old news by then. So how come the first 64 edition, cut most probably from the same tape, doesn't seem to have aything special about it? Isn't it more likely that the German cutting engineer simply wasn't happy with the sound he got the first time and decided to rebalance the channels and alter the EQ?

The rest of your post is interesting, but it all comes down to too many "who knows?" and "maybes". No evidence on the existence of that tape, just a difference in sound that can be attributed to other factors.

 

I suppose so, but then he'd be ignoring instructions on what EMI intended the LP to sound like, since the ~1 mat German stereo is similar, if not identical, to the UK stereo. If that's the case, I'm glad he did.

Comprehensive Beatles: Sonic Hierarchy: Please Please Me LP STEREO

Sonic Identification. The Specific German Mastering is a “dry” master. It lacks the extra compression which was applied to the UK master, and, consequently, some of the tracks here have somewhat less perceived reverb, and a natural quality that makes it seem as if you’re in the studio with the boys. Excellent tonal features and lots of “air" on those affected tracks.

...

Intent. It would appear to be obvious, since there was a first German Stereo lacquer (“-1”) which sounds rather like the UK Mastering, that processing instructions had been sent to Germany along with a dub of the UK production master, and that these instructions had been initially followed. But, when it came time for the reissue on the Hör Zu label, a new lacquer (“-2”) was cut (from the same production master), and it seems just as obvious that the processing instructions were then ignored. Now, whether this was done accidentally (oversight) or deliberately (the mastering engineer decided to make his own Beatles record, for whatever reason), I do not know.

There is some argument over whether EMI sent unprocessed production masters (plus instructions) to countries other than Germany. Of course, this would appear to be logical standard procedure. Others believe that EMI sent separate already-processed production masters to each country, but this seems more difficult. Either way, an unprocessed production master (that is, lacquer “-2”) was certainly not what EMI had in mind for Germany.

***

 

Regarding Yes It Is, the stereo mix was also issued in the Netherlands circa 1976 or so, as part of the Dutch singles box. The sleeves for each 45 were orange and the font and presentation is similar to the UK reissue 45s that were released around 1976.

As far as I know, the Dutch 45 is the only way one can get the stereo mix of Yes It Is in true AAA. For what it's worth...

 

I should be getting soon a French reissue that was issued in the late 1970s.

 

I have that box...thought it was '82, but the fonts on the box and sleeves are identical to the '76 UK, just the sleeves in the Dutch singles box are kind of orange/tan, not green like the UK.

 

Interesting...

Comprehensive Beatles: 1963, February 25: Mixing: Details

Stereo Mixing.

Lewisohn, in Recording Sessions, gave a linear chronology that included two stretches of Stereo mixing. The first stretch came in the morning, after much Mono mixing, and continued until lunchtime, 10 songs mixed to Stereo. The second stretch ended the day, the four songs already released on 45 mixed to Stereo, and an extra Stereo mix for "Misery."

Barrett acknowledged Stereo mixing ("2T") for all 14 songs, six on EMI Reel E48978, and eight on EMI Reel E48979. This seems to be counter-intuitive to Lewisohn's chronology, only because it would entail George Martin changing reels more often than seems prudent. But it is not outside the realm of possibility.

Winn, in his comments on Barrett's notes, disagreed, “There IS NO RECORD of a stereo mix reel for the PLEASE PLEASE ME album. Thus, direct twin-track copies of the session tapes were assembled to make the stereo master reels (TL11440A/B), and Martin was apparently correct in all those 1987 interviews when he said he never remixed this album for stereo (although he was wrong about it not being released in stereo at the time).” First, I think there is a record of Stereo mixing (Lewisohn) and of a Stereo mix reel, in fact, two (Barrett). Second, I have not been able to discover where George Martin stated that he never remixed the album for Stereo. In Recording Sessions (1988), Martin is quoted, "The reason I used the Stereo machine in twin-track form was simply to make the Mono better, to delay the vital decision of submerging the voices into the background. I certainly didn't separate them for people to hear them separate!", but this does not necessarily support Winn.

Still, I will not say that George Martin did much more than transfer the twin-tracks, instruments sent hard (wide) to the Left channel, vocals and overdubs send hard to the Right channel.

 

Was it 1982? I'll take your word.

 

Well, now I think you're right, 1976. It looks like the counterpart to the UK 1976 box.

 

Those dates are highly significant in the context of the tape that was sent to Electrola in Germany as Die Beatles was issued almost a year after the British release.

From our host:
"The first album was cut in twin-track. That was the work part.
It was "mixed" to two track with EQ and compression and marked master.
The German (and only the German) import copy tape was made from the twin-track as well.
The twin-track was not the master. The twin-track was the raw tape.
The twin-track was destroyed, the masters having been mixed from it. See?
This is straight from George Martin when I met him in 1976.
They didn't keep the raw two track of the first album (or the second album, for that matter) because they were stupid.
Same reason they didn't keep it for LOVE ME DO, SHE LOVES YOU, etc.
After 1963 they started saving everything."

With the twin-track work tape confirmed as destroyed in 1963, then what tape was sent to Germany the following year apart from a copy of the master tape, which was standard Abbey Road operating procedure for export markets?

 

So the LP was mixed to stereo twice, once in Feb. 1963 and another time in Nov. or Dec. 1963 specifically for Germany and then the twin-track tapes were disposed of? I thought the first German PPM sounded dull and the 1966 reissue was the one to get?

 

Don't know about those dates, but the 'one to get' is a copy with A2/B2 matrices, which appeared on 2 or 3 different HorZu labels up through 1976 or so, then on German Apple after that on copies that had the regular UK PPM artwork on the cover. The album may have had matrices ending in ~1 prior to 1966, just like the UK Parlophone.

 

The tapes must have been edited prior to being on the LP reels: the count-in to ISHST is still on the original tape before take 9. So I don't think EMI staff simply cut out the finished tracks from the session tapes and placed them on the album reels. They must have been processed in between.

 

Fremer's point was that the MFSL album covers do not show the actual tapes and boxes. This is somewhat obvious, as all albums use the same photo of a tape and box, but the LP Master labels are superimposed on top of that. That doesn't invalidate the authenticity of the labels. The MFSL covers are not the only place these have appeared. The label for the With the Beatles master is reproduced in the 2012 vinyl stereo box book, for instance, and looks very much like the PPM label as has been posted. Also the dates showing when the tapes were unsealed/sealed could probably be validated to some extent.

But regardless of this, I don't think anyone has claimed that the labels provide any information relevant to the discussion of Die Beatles except that the usual album master, "Tape Library No." 11440A and 11440B is well documented as the stereo LP master for Please Please Me, and there is no documentary evidence of any other master tape.

 

You can see the tin boxes where the tapes are stored in the Beatles in mono film or pictures from 2014 when the mono LPs came out. I think Fremer can be seen actually holding one such tape box.

 

And the title track needed more editing work than that, being a combination of 3 'takes' (actually 3 different sync-up attempts to include the harmonica part).

 

Thanks. I found that:

 

The biggest question I would have, is "why?". Why would they create an unprocessed master tape that would servo no other purpose other than to be used to create a processed master? Maybe this was SOP later(?), but I understood that in early 1963 they were attempting to get to the final product in as few steps as necessary, hence the use of delta mono, in hopes that they could skip the extra step of mixing down from twin track. Didn't they have the opportunity for EQ and compression at every stage of the process: recording, mixing, and mastering?

 

What do cardboard boxes have to do with anything? What's shown in the MFSL box (and reproduced online) are the sheets that are stored inside the tins.

It's not clear to me what is in doubt.

Who claimed anything about disappeared? They've been at EMI since 1963. They are noted in John Barrett's notes. Pulled by mistake (apparently) for Australia, and IWTHYH has not been used since because the 1966 stereo mix is considered official. This Boy has been used in 1988 and 2009 for Past Masters.

It's not clear to me what's "completely messed up" about the 1965 and 1966 mixes, but yes, presumably, documentation was not always the best. That is, until John Barrett came along, who went through all of the tapes found at the time and documented them. E50905:



Presumably the fact the vocals are on one side would render the 1963 mix "insufficient".

Some other German LPs *do* sound great. The Beatles Beat and Beatles Greatest have great sounding versions of Can't Buy Me Love and I Want To Hold Your Hand (1965 stereo mix) for example. The sound quality is great, and there's a (arguably) very pleasant EQ. I would consider the mastering style not unlike Die Beatles.

As noted above, I don't think it's unique. Why ignore MMT?

Some German cuts were great, some were terrible.

 

I don't see what Martin's faulty memory has to do with Rouse. Rouse says that Harry Moss left "extensive" cutting notes for the PPM master. If the master tape was already EQ'ed and compressed for LP as you claim, why would any cutting notes be necessary? That makes no sense.

To summarize:
1. No evidence (documents or testimony from participants) has been found that a "less processed" PPM master ever existed. Nor is there any record of such a tape being copied and sent to Germany.
2. If such a tape existed, it has not been found in the Abbey Road vault. Nor has anyone been able to find the alleged 1st-generation copy of it that is claimed to have been sent to Germany.
3. The evidence we do have (the matching fades on the stereo and mono mixes, and Harry Moss' notes) argue strongly against such a tape having existed.
4. Looking at the screenshots provided by Slane, it does not appear that the Die Beatles tape has any greater degree of dynamic range than the standard version of the album.

Mastering choices can make a dramatic difference in how an album sounds. This whole forum is devoted to that premise, in fact. So it seems strange that folks are arguing against mastering as being the cause of how Die Beatles sounds, particularly since there is zero evidence that it was anything else.

 

I have this Dutch box too. I was always under the impression it was a 1976 release.

 

Well, technically it was also in true AAA on the Heineken promo cassette from '86-ish.

 

Which I find quite strange. Why remix it in 1965 and 1966 when a superior sounding stereo mix already existed? Something's very, very odd about that, wouldn't you say?

Again, a beautiful sounding stereo mix goes unused for 25 years, and besides the (fine sounding) mono we get duophonic in its place all the way up to 1988? You don't find that puzzling? Hmm.

Limp (especially on the intro where it counts the most), cloudy lost clarity over GM's mix -- in short, one of the worst stereo remixes ever. I'll try to post samples in a couple of days.

But sufficient for the entire PPM and WTB LPs. Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't A Collection Of Beatles Oldies full of vocals-on-one-side tracks? Those were OK but IWTHYH was not? Wasn't the 1966 stereo remix specifically intended for A Collection of Beatles Oldies? Is there any logic to that whatsoever? Why remix just IWTHYH if vocals on one side was the problem? Very, very puzzling train of thought on that. That is why I tend to think GM's 1963 mix was lost or misplaced or misfiled or something at the time for it to be remixed again in 1965 and 1966. I'm no expert on it, but that anyone would think GM's mix wasn't immediately, clearly better than the stereo remixes that appeared on A Collection Of Beatles Oldies and elsewhere is completely, utterly lost on me.

I own both of those, but only have The Beatles Beat here and available for listening.

Can't Buy Me Love does sound great on that The Beatles Beat and I prefer it to what's on the UK stereo A Hard Days Night. Not sure compared to the UK Hey Jude LP, but I think it's probably better on Hey Jude. Close, maybe.

I Want To Hold Your Hand? Ugh. Really, really bad. Sorry, I don't think it even approaches George Martin's original stereo mix. Not even close IMO. The clarity is smeared over GM's mix, George Harrison's guitar sounds weird by comparison -- it's just messed up IMO.

The Beatles Beat has a great track list and it has held a special place in my Beatles collections since I bought my first copy in 1974.

Tonally, you're right, it's pleasant, but it has some serious problems -- the 3 duophonic tracks for example. Actually, She Loves You and I'll Get You don't sound too bad for duophonic IMO, but You Can't Do That is awful, awful, awful. I wish I had a stereo US Capitol The Beatles Second Album again for a crap sound shoot out because I'm sure the track from The Beatles Beat would hold its own. It could be that it was US Capitol sourced anyway. Sure sounds like it. And since the stereo mix of Thank You Girl is the same as what appeared on The Beatles Second Album, that might make sense. I don't know that the remainder of the tracks have anything special over UK stereo editions, since I haven't done a proper A/B. I certainly don't seek out The Beatles Beat for anything, though I picked up my current copy to have the stereo Thank You Girl. I did think at one time I liked the stereo From Me To You on The Beatles Beat over the one included on A Collection Of Beatles Oldies. Haven't compared for a long time so I don't know now.

I do, at least compared to any other stereo mix of PPM I've heard, including one and two box EMI ~1 mats, various other UK '70s stereo presses, JPN, MFSL...I'll say it again: if I had to choose just one, it has to be Die Beatles or possibly the 1977 German Apple version with the same matrices. No contest for me. And, at this point, I doubt there ever will be.

I didn't -- mentioned it in an earlier post. Own two NM copies myself and it takes its place with Die Beatles IMO as the best stereo version of the album available.

If weren't already set with UK's, I'd be interested in hearing about the 'great' ones, but after hearing the (IMO) awful turn-the-bass-to-11 EQing on a WG stereo Revolver, SPLHCB and IIRC I'm pretty skeptical. I would like to hear the couple of German presses of the White Album people talk about -- '70s press and the later DMM.

You may not think Die Beatles unique and that's fine. I do believe you are in a tiny minority on that, however, at least as far as discussions about it have gone around here for the past 12 or 14 years or so. We like what we like.

Who knows. When I'm finally able to dig my MFSL PPM out of storage after 20 years I might find I dig the hell out of it.

 

You think it's superior. Those involved may not have felt the same way.

No. What about it?

I've heard all 3 stereo mixes. I don't need samples.

I disagree. Sounds great to me.

And what does any of this have to do with Die Beatles anyway?

The point is the tonality is very nice. That some Capitol tracks were used is irrelevant for the current discussion.

I don't think it is inherently different from the mastering on other German LPs cut around the same time. That is, good.

 

So substituting duophonic for 25 years isn't strange when a beautiful sounding true stereo mix was available? All right, then. Makes sense.

Others might be interested. The GM mix is not too well known.

See post #268. You brought it up to rebut my criticism of German Beatles LP mastering beyond Die Beatles and MMT.

I may have been biased after my experience with a German Revolver and SPLCHB, which some like. I find those two unlistenable -- bass to "11." The Beatles Beat has nice tonality, but doesn't come close to having the clarity of Die Beatles, for whatever reason.

 

No, you brought up the 1963 stereo mix of I Want To Hold Your Hand, not me.