Beatles Mono Box set: Interview With Michael Fremer video

Recorded yesterday on the Home Theater Geeks podcast

 

Interesting for as long as I could listen to it, but one thing kinda bothers me:

They were trying to make the beatles mono box set, sound "Like" the original record, which it's original sound was based on what they heard 50 years ago on some ancient table and cart and totally different types of monitor speakers than anything we have today.

Which begs the question, why are we trying to replicate a sound that was based on equipment that must have sounded quite different than anything today, studio wise or home wise, when we could instead better it?

I get the idea of the original record being some "Holy Grail", but my it's very nature is also a flawed product, in that it must have been deliberately eq'ed to sound good back then on early equipment. Even if it still "Sounds good" today, I wonder if trying to replicate something perfected on aged gear, and of the time, does not add its own sonic signature, that is at odds with todays speakers and playback equipment.

I have owned gear from the 60's tables, and speakers, and none were all that close to the sound of stuff recently.

 

Having trouble with your analogy, what is in the groves is in the grooves. They are trying to duplicate that. As long as one is using the same set up then, in theory at least, it should/could be the same. The only change is how the groove info is transmitted to your amp.

 

They determined how it would sound, back in the 60's on stuff that was nothing like we have today.

So the sound is idealized for how stuff sounded back then, and not now.

 

I think his point is that there may be info on the tapes that never made it into the grooves back then, because of the EQ choices applied.

 

But the grooves are the same, don't get your point. It's not about the equipment, it's about what is in the grooves. If you are using the same equipment to do the comparison then what table you use does not matter. It is not about getting a particular sound per say, it's about matching the sound. Yes, they could have just as easily used a vintage table for the comparison. That's not the point. It should sound close to the original on my table, your table and Joe Blows table, that is what they are seeking.

 

The most interesting part for me was hearing Roy DuNann's lacquer cutting/master techniques. The 45 rpm Way Out West reissue is one of my best sounding jazz albums.

 

Why should it sound like the original?

The original's sound was determined on really old stuff that most likely is a good bit different than today.

As a historical document, sure.

As to getting the best possible sound, how could it be?

The mastering was done originally on really old stuff of the time, that almost for sure would not sound the same if the same people back then mastered it today.

 

It's about matching the grooves, it's about being authentic. I have 40 year old mastered vinyl that the newer reissues IMO can't match. Newer is not always better, in fact I'm finding that it rarely is. These artists tried to get the best sound they could. As advances in equipment advance - these old pressings just sound better and better. Sure a lot of the single 45's were mastered for air play and such, not always for optimum sound - more for impact. Maybe you are thinking of those?

 

I think you're missing the point though. In the 60s, the lower and upper frequencies would have been rolled off more dramatically than they need to be today, to accommodate poor playback equipment. Records can now be cut differently, from the same master tapes as were originally used. These reissues could theoretically sound better than the originals because more of the sound could be transferred to the lacquers from the tapes.

 

Well, in a way you may be right. But it is not all about the specs. It's much more - it's about the end presentation - one point that is hard to calculate is "air". But that may be off topic. With the reverence that the original Beatles catalog holds - then ya' need to get as close to that sound as humanly possible. Mono Beatles fans want that experience without paying top dollar for those UK originals! They tried "improvements" with the last stereo issues - they missed the mark - and I'm comparing to a much later '78 blue box press, not the "real" ones.

 

Exactly!
Plus, some of the EQ choices they made, were also determined by what sounded good to them, on the tables and speakers of the day.

It might be fine, but I highly doubt it would be ideal as to what would sound perfect on a table and speaker of today.

 

So you would strive for what sounds good for you today, and not make a goal of simply matching what they "found" to be ideal say in 1965 or what have you?

 

I totally agree. "Matching the grooves" does not equate to "matching the sound" when the playback equipment changes. The objective should be nothing short of "optimizing" the sound, for contemporary playback equipment.

 

Well, yes and no; originally they were given what George Martin called ''a mid-range lift'' at the cutting stage to compensate for the crappy TTs/speakers of the time. They were going to be played on Dansettes and radiograms.

 

Very, very interesting interview.
Also very interesting that the review was read, the criticism was taken to heart and has made a difference.
Great.

 

But if one matches the grooves - would not the new ones sound like the old ones on whatever one plays it on? It appears that may be the goal of Abbey in this case. The "improvements" on the new stereo box were not received that well by many, well those who loved the "old" sound I guess.

 

Absolutely. But isn't it conceivable that it might sound even better, on "modern" equipment, if the grooves are altered in some way? If authenticity is an issue, consider that, perhaps, the altered grooves might produce a sound that is more faithful to the original master tapes.

Anyway, I think this was kevintomb's original point, and I think I agree with him.

 

But I think on the Stereo ones, they made the "Wrong kind of improvements". Or at least somewhat. Compression and eq boosts, simply for the sake of boosting bass and treble.

Matching the original would be a goal, only if the original was perfect as is.

 

Farrrrr be it from me to argue any mastering technics with a top mastering engineer, not my goal here fo' sure. As a owner of some of your end products, I was happy with how close the CD's sounded to my early US vinyl of say artists like Deep Purple, Alice Cooper, Yes, CCR, etc. Before joining this thread I would have sworn that your goal was to match the originals. Of course I now know different. Yet, still, that is how I measure a reissue, how close is it to the pressing that I hold near and dear. Of course I have a very humble system and my views could change as my equipment does.......who knows?

 

To me, you can make a reasonable aesthetic and historic case for either approach -- one that views the originally release album as the historic document you're trying to replicate or one that views the original session and master tape as the historic document you're trying to replicate. Just two different types of reissues. From a marketing POV I understand the appeal of replicating the original albums. I suspect that's the sound a lot of nostalgic buyers want to hear.

 

I agree with all you said. Yet still, as an end user only, one that will never hear a master tape of anything - then my litmus test is that early vinyl press of whatever artist/album we speak of. Could it be better? Possibly. But I feel, and perhaps incorrectly, that the original release is what the artists and engineers involved wanted to create. I guess one could argue that the equipment is so much better now. I will use the Black Keys as an example to that point. They could record very differently if they chose to with what is available now, yet they choose that sound for a reason - should we change it 30 years down the road because equipment has changed? I vote no, but my vote's just one drop in the ocean. Rock on!

 

THIS is why labels and artists will NEVER be able to make everyone happy with reissues. Ive said many times around here that I love the recent stereo LP set, but it does sound different than the originals. I think this mono box will be a killer release but I don't think it will sound like the originals. Close yes, but it should not sound the same.